| |||||||||||||
Yes. and No. and Yes.Yes. and No. and Yes.Posted Jan 17, 2008 16:10 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Yes. and No. and Yes. by hummassa Parent article: State of the unionfs
It occurs to me that this could be used to make fakeroot a lot less ugly internally. It wouldn't need to mess around transforming paths anymore, just union-mount something writable over / in a per-process cloned namespace, fake out permissions checks, and Bob's your uncle :) no harm can be done should the code 'overwrite' /etc/shadow or 'delete' /usr, because trusted code could inspect the writable union target post-'make install' and transfer only those parts which look acceptable onto the underlying filesystem(s).
(Log in to post comments)
Yes. and No. and Yes. Posted Jan 18, 2008 8:59 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link] I thought that the point of fakeroot was that it let you do arbitrary (virtual) chown/chmod's on files you had just created, not that it let you scribble randomly on the existing filesystem. I guess you could have, like, a FUSE filesystem that allowed anyone to do arbitrary chown/chmod, but could only be mounted nodev nosuid. That might be safe and effective. Or something with containers?
|
|||||||||||||