Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/3] vfs: Allow rmdir to remove mounts in all but the current mount namespace

[Posted October 15, 2013 by jake]

From:		Miklos Szeredi <miklos-AT-szeredi.hu>
To:		"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm-AT-xmission.com>
Subject:		Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/3] vfs: Allow rmdir to remove mounts in all but the current mount namespace
Date:		Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:57:15 +0200
Message-ID:		<CAJfpegvF89LzAvNB0h0otv7sKoS3rewZzQKAauQx3P+rCkCcSg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:		Andy Lutomirski <luto-AT-amacapital.net>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge-AT-hallyn.com>, Al Viro <viro-AT-zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, Rob Landley <rob-AT-landley.net>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>
Archive‑link:		Article

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:

> I have been weighing the pros and the cons of this.
>
> At this point the most practical path I can see is to block unlink,
> rename, and rmdir if there is a mount in the local namespace.
>
> At the very least that makes very limited additions to what applications
> can depend on from the vfs, and even more importantly that can be ready
> by 3.13.
>
> Furthermore it removes the nasty need for filesystems to lie to the vfs,
> and removes the nasty DOS that non-local mountpoints are.

Agreed 100%.

> Miklos if you as the fuse maintainer aren't worried about network
> filesystems, and multiple namespaces I won't worry either.  Especially
> since modern versions of fuse aren't affected.

I think the above conditions (local mount blocks unlink/rename) are
enough to prevent most of the problems, of which there aren't many in
any case.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html