Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 04 Apr 2006 02:51:33 -0400
From:      Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: RFC: Adding a ``user'' mount option
Message-ID:  <1144133493.9725.36.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060403232730.E76562@fledge.watson.org>
References:  <1144042356.824.16.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20060403104309.Y76562@fledge.watson.org> <44316CAB.2040706@FreeBSD.org> <20060403232730.E76562@fledge.watson.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--=-K/Cgq+fdqB8B1GWLTuHp
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 23:30 +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
>=20
> >> I would suggest that an extremely careful security audit of the usersp=
ace=20
> >> and kernel mount and unmount code is due -- especially things like the=
=20
> >> per-filesystem mount code (mount_nfs, etc).  I'm not against the princ=
iple=20
> >> of this though.
> >
> > Agreed.  I was hoping to make this solution secure, flexible, and easy =
to=20
> > use.
>=20
> Sure.  And if you don't commit bug fixes to mount, we'll know you haven't=
=20
> tried looking very hard, because it seems very likely to me it has proble=
ms=20
> :-).
>=20
> >> Also, I'm not 100% sure we should make the getuid() check return a har=
d=20
> >> error in user space.  Let's continue to let the kernel code make the a=
ccess=20
> >> control decision here.
> >
> > I did the check in user space so that I could read the fstab file, and =
know=20
> > that the volume was allowed to be user-[un]mounted.  I suppose, though,=
 that=20
> > I could set the flags in user space, then pass that to the kernel for t=
he=20
> > actual access control decision as you say.
>=20
> I'm not entirely clear on what ideal is, but one possibility is to allow =
the=20
> user mount bit to determine whether the mount system call is invoked with=
=20
> privilege.

Thanks for the feedback.  I'll try and release an updated diff this
weekend that incorporates your suggestions, and I'll attempt the
wildcard suggestion made by silby.

Joe

>=20
> Robert N M Watson
>=20
--=20
Joe Marcus Clarke
FreeBSD GNOME Team      ::      gnome@FreeBSD.org
FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome

--=-K/Cgq+fdqB8B1GWLTuHp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBEMhd1b2iPiv4Uz4cRAtKLAKCZgj4Q5H2wV3tqeEqyyaxpuQB8GgCbBv/n
JvCLLeqH+1yjZpuEtdPt+80=
=ml5G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-K/Cgq+fdqB8B1GWLTuHp--




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1144133493.9725.36.camel>