From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miklos Szeredi Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/11] FUSE mounts from non-init user namespaces Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:32:09 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Dongsu Park Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, lkml , Seth Forshee , Alban Crequy , "Eric W . Biederman" , Sargun Dhillon List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Dongsu Park wrote: > Patches 1-2 deal with an additional flag of lookup_bdev() to check for > additional inode permission. fuse_blk is less suitable for unprivileged mounting than plain fuse. fusermount doesn't allow mounting fuse_blk unprivileged, so there's little data about that usecase (IIRC ntfs3g guys did that, or at least tried to do it, but I don't remember the details). As such, I think we should leave it out of the initial version. Which means you can drop patches 1-2 from this series. Unless there's a strong use case for this. In which case we should look hard at the differences between fuse_blk and fuse and how that affects unprivileged operation. There are a few assumptions about fuse_blk filesystem being more "well behaved", I think. Thanks, Miklos From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934894AbeBMLcM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2018 06:32:12 -0500 Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]:34272 "EHLO mail-qk0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933926AbeBMLcK (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2018 06:32:10 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226X/0ARtf93TVlrioZdQC162wHX586uOSdS1sx9oumDnXkp3vfKgYhZUX/QSIu0WItPbZG1bq2kx5s8G5KjNSc= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:32:09 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/11] FUSE mounts from non-init user namespaces To: Dongsu Park Cc: lkml , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Alban Crequy , "Eric W . Biederman" , Seth Forshee , Sargun Dhillon Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Dongsu Park wrote: > Patches 1-2 deal with an additional flag of lookup_bdev() to check for > additional inode permission. fuse_blk is less suitable for unprivileged mounting than plain fuse. fusermount doesn't allow mounting fuse_blk unprivileged, so there's little data about that usecase (IIRC ntfs3g guys did that, or at least tried to do it, but I don't remember the details). As such, I think we should leave it out of the initial version. Which means you can drop patches 1-2 from this series. Unless there's a strong use case for this. In which case we should look hard at the differences between fuse_blk and fuse and how that affects unprivileged operation. There are a few assumptions about fuse_blk filesystem being more "well behaved", I think. Thanks, Miklos