Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status (fuse)

[Eric Van Hensbergen]

> >
> > I'm asking you to expand on what the problems would be if we were to
> > enhance the namespace code as suggested.
> 
> OK, what I was thinking, is that the user could create a new
> namespace, that has all the filesystems remounted 'nosuid'.  This
> wouldn't need any new kernel infrastructure, just a suid-root program
> (e.g. newns_nosuid), that would do a clone(CLONE_NEWNS), then
> recursively remount everything 'nosuid' in the new namespace.  Then
> restore the user's privileges, and exec a shell.
>

I'm confused why everything has to be remounted nosuid.  I understand
enforcing synthetics to be mounted nosuid, but not the rest of the
file systems.  I thought all the problems revolving around the private
namespace solution where the FUSE team's desire to have per-user
namespace and/or per-session namespace versus per-process namespace.

         -eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/