Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755289AbYAILMp (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:12:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752399AbYAILMd (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:12:33 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:59380 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751424AbYAILMb (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:12:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:11:20 +0100 From: Karel Zak To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org, serue@us.ibm.com, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, util-linux-ng@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 6/9] unprivileged mounts: allow unprivileged mounts Message-ID: <20080109111120.GI3926@petra.dvoda.cz> References: <20080108113502.184459371@szeredi.hu> <20080108113629.192719163@szeredi.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080108113629.192719163@szeredi.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1337 Lines: 31 On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:35:08PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged mounting of > this filesystem may not constitute a security problem. > > Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged mounting in > mind, a thorough audit is needed before setting this flag. > > For "safe" filesystems also allow unprivileged forced unmounting. What about to list "safe" filesystems anywhere in /proc/fs/ ? I think it's very important information for admins. Note, your patch for mount(8) is always trying to use unprivileged mount(2) for non-root users. It's overkill when unprivileged mounts are supported for bind mounts and fuse only. It would be nice to check if FS is "safe" before switch to unprivileged mode. The "safe" definition is also very subjective and it depends on your level of paranoia. There should be a way (e.g. /proc) how control and modify the list of "safe" filesystems. For example I have no problem to mark cifs as "safe" for my home server. Karel -- Karel Zak -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/