> > I've tried to make this unprivileged mount thing as simple as
quoted text
> > possible, and no simpler.  If we can make it even simpler, all the
> > better.
> 
> We are certainly much more complex then the code in plan9 (just
> read through it) so I think we have room for improvement.
> 
> Just for reference what I saw in plan 9 was:
> - No super user checks in it's mount, unmount, or namespace creation paths.
> - A flag to deny new mounts but not new bind mounts (for administrative purposes
>   the comment said).
> 
> Our differences from plan9.
> - suid capable binaries. (SUID please go away).
> - A history of programs assuming only root could call mount/unmount.

I hate suid as well.  _The_ motivation behind this patchset was to get
rid of "fusermount", a suid mount helper for fuse.

But I don't think suid is going away, and definitely not overnight.
Also I don't think we want to require auditing userspace before
enabling user mounts.

If I understand correctly, your proposal is to get rid of MNT_USER and
MNT_ALLOWUSERMNT and allow/deny unprivileged mounts and umounts based
on a boolean sysctl flag and on a check if the target namespace is the
initial namespace or not.  And maybe add some extra checks which
prevent ugliness from happening with suid programs.  Is this correct?

If so, how are we going to make sure this won't break existing
userspace without doing a full audit of all suid programs in every
distro that wants this feature?

Also how are we going to prevent the user from creating millions of
mounts, and using up all the kernel memory for vfsmounts?

Miklos
-
unsubscribe notice
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/