Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755979AbYAILM5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:12:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754014AbYAILMj (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:12:39 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:38316 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753432AbYAILMg (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:12:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:12:42 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org, serue@us.ibm.com, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, ebiederm@xmission.com, kzak@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, util-linux-ng@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 7/9] unprivileged mounts: allow unprivileged fuse mounts Message-ID: <20080109111242.GB9735@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20080108113502.184459371@szeredi.hu> <20080108113630.861045063@szeredi.hu> <20080108214625.GE5050@ucw.cz> <47840DAC.5000108@nigel.suspend2.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2069 Lines: 42 On Wed 2008-01-09 09:47:31, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > >> On Tue 2008-01-08 12:35:09, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > >>> From: Miklos Szeredi > > >>> > > >>> Use FS_SAFE for "fuse" fs type, but not for "fuseblk". > > >>> > > >>> FUSE was designed from the beginning to be safe for unprivileged users. This > > >>> has also been verified in practice over many years. In addition unprivileged > > >> Eh? So 'kill -9 no longer works' and 'suspend no longer works' is not > > >> considered important enough to even mention? > > > > > > No. Because in practice they don't seem to matter. Also because > > > there's no way in which fuse could be done differently to address > > > these issues. > > > > Could you clarify, please? I hope I'm getting the wrong end of the stick > > - it sounds to me like you and Pavel are saying that this patch breaks > > suspending to ram (and hibernating?) but you want to push it anyway > > because you haven't been able to produce an instance, don't think > > suspending or hibernating matter and couldn't fix fuse anyway? > > This patch has nothing to do with suspend or hibernate. What this > patchset does, is help get rid of fusermount, a suid-root mount > helper. It also opens up new possibilities, which are not fuse > related. > > Fuse has bad interactions with the freezer, theoretically. In > practice, I remember just one bug report (that sparked off this whole > "do we need freezer, or don't we" flamefest), that actually got fixed > fairly quickly, ...maybe. Rafael probably remembers better. In practice, if the "unpriviledged fuse" gets enabled, any user can prevent suspend/hibernation from working. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/