Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@szeredi.hu):
quoted text
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@szeredi.hu):
> > > Serge, thanks for spotting this: it looks indeed a nasty hole!  I also
> > > agree about the solution.
> > 
> > Are you implementing it, or did you want me to?
> 
> I'll implement it.

Ok, thanks.  I look forward to playing around with it when you publish
the resulting git tree  :)

quoted text
> > > But yeah, we should think this over very carefully.  Especially
> > > interaction with mount propagation, which has very complicated and
> > > sometimes rather counter-intuitive semantics.
> > 
> > I know we discussed before about whether a propagated mount from a
> > non-user mount to a user mount should end up being owned by the user
> > or not.  I don't recall (and am not checking the code at the moment
> > as your tree is sitting elsewhere) whether we mark the propagated
> > tree with the right nosuid and nodev flags, or whether we call it
> > a user mount or not.
> 
> If the destination is a user mount, then
> 
>  - the propagated mount(s) will be owned by the same user as the destination
>  - the propagated mount(s) will inherit 'nosuid' from the destination
> 
> I remember also thinking about 'nodev' and why it doesn't need similar
> treatment to 'nosuid'.  The reasoning was that 'nodev' is safe as long
> as permissions are enforced, namespace shuffling cannot make it
> insecure.  Does that sound correct?

Yes that sounds correct, thanks for the refresher.

-serge
--
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/