Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

From: Serge E. Hallyn
Date: Thu Apr 26 2007 - 15:42:48 EST

Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@xxxxxxxxxx):
> > So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will
> > remain unchanged?
> Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added
> to -mm, did some cosmetic code changes, and updated the patch headers.
> There's one open point, that I think we haven't really explored, and
> that is the propagation semantics. I think you had the idea, that a
> propagated mount should inherit ownership from the parent into which
> it was propagated.

Don't think that was me. I stayed out of those early discussions
because I wasn't comfortable guessing at the proper semantics yet.

But really, I, as admin, have to set up both propagation and user mounts
for a particular subtree, so why would I *not* want user mounts to be

So, in my own situation, I have done

make / rshared
mount --bind /share /share
make /share unbindable
for u in $users; do
mount --rbind / /share/$u/root
make /share/$u/root rslave
make /share/$u/root rshared
mount --bind -o user=$u /share/$u/root/home/$u /share/$u/root/home/$u

All users get chrooted into /share/$USER/root, some also get their own
namespace. Clearly if a user in a new namespace does

mount --bind -o user=me ~/somedir ~/otherdir

then logs out, and logs back in, I want the ~/otherdir in the new
namespace (and the one in the 'init' namespace) to also be owned by

> That sounds good if everyone agrees?

I've shown where I think propagating the mount owner is useful. Can you
detail a scenario where doing so would be bad? Then we can work toward
semantics that make sense...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at