From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750930AbeBPVx6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:53:58 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:52818 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750769AbeBPVx4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:53:56 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: Dongsu Park , lkml , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Alban Crequy , Seth Forshee , Sargun Dhillon References: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:53:19 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Miklos Szeredi's message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:32:09 +0100") Message-ID: <87y3jssisw.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1emnwq-0005W3-VU;;;mid=<87y3jssisw.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=174.19.85.160;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18uKjADgJE8OVmViE5VnNZqrFUh7ZQvFqU= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 174.19.85.160 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Miklos Szeredi X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 15021 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 2.6 (0.0%), b_tie_ro: 1.83 (0.0%), parse: 0.79 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 10 (0.1%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.94 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 3.2 (0.0%), compile_eval: 0.22 (0.0%), tests_pri_-950: 1.22 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 1.16 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 17 (0.1%), check_bayes: 16 (0.1%), b_tokenize: 5 (0.0%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.0%), b_comp_prob: 1.79 (0.0%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.2 (0.0%), b_finish: 0.56 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 116 (0.8%), check_dkim_signature: 0.49 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 3.5 (0.0%), tests_pri_500: 14866 (99.0%), poll_dns_idle: 14857 (98.9%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/11] FUSE mounts from non-init user namespaces X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Miklos Szeredi writes: > 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. Especially to start with I am fine with that. It makes a lot of sense to get the obvious cases first. Eric