On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Seth Forshee [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 12:29:23PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:03:55PM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
quoted
quoted
-static int parse_fuse_opt(char *opt, struct fuse_mount_data *d, int is_bdev)
+static int parse_fuse_opt(char *opt, struct fuse_mount_data *d, int is_bdev,
+ struct user_namespace *user_ns)
{
char *p;
memset(d, 0, sizeof(struct fuse_mount_data));
d->max_read = ~0;
d->blksize = FUSE_DEFAULT_BLKSIZE;
+ d->user_id = make_kuid(user_ns, 0);
+ d->group_id = make_kgid(user_ns, 0);
It is true that if "user_id=" or "group_id" options were omitted we used the
zero uid/gid values. However, this isn't actually used by anybody AFAIK, and
generalizing it for userns doesn't seem to make much sense.
So I suggest we that we instead return an error if mounting from a userns AND
neither "allow_other" nor both "user_id" and "group_id" are specified.
But those are also used for ownership of the connection files in
fusectl. In an allow_other mount shouldn't those files by owned by
namespace root and not global root?
Yes.
Can't we use current_cred()->uid/gid? Or fsuid/fsgid maybe?
When we have true unprivileged mounts, the user_id/group_id options
become redundant anyway and we can just use the current credentials.
Thanks,
Miklos
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785111&iu=/4140
--
fuse-devel mailing list
To unsubscribe or subscribe, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fuse-devel