From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760137Ab3HNRmW (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:42:22 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:46399 "EHLO mail-qc0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758368Ab3HNRmU (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:42:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [86.59.245.170] Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:42:19 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: DoS with unprivileged mounts From: Miklos Szeredi To: "Eric W. Biederman" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Al Viro Cc: Linux-Fsdevel , Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org There's a simple and effective way to prevent unlink(2) and rename(2) from operating on any file or directory by simply mounting something on it. In any mount instance in any namespace. Was this considered in the unprivileged mount design? The solution is also theoretically simple: mounts in unpriv namespaces are marked "volatile" and are dissolved on an unlink type operation. Such volatile mounts would be useful in general too. Thanks, Miklos