> >> > + if (mnt->mnt_flags & MNT_USER) > >> > + seq_printf(m, ",user=%i", mnt->mnt_uid); > >> How about making the test "if (mnt->mnt_user != &root_user)" > > > > We don't want to treat root_user special. That's what capabilities > > were invented for. > > For the print statement? What ever it is minor.
It is a user interface, not a print statement. Your suggested change would be vetoed by any number of people. So either we have all mounts having owners, AND have /proc/mounts add "user=0" to all mounts. While I don't _think_ this would actually break userspace, it would definitely make people complain. The other choice is what the current patchset does: is to have "legacy" mounts without owners, and "new generation" mounts with owners having "user=UID" in /proc/mounts, regardless of the value of UID. > So I want to minimize the changes needed to existing programs. > Now if all we have to do is specify MS_SETUSER when root a > user with CAP_SETUID is setting up a mount as a user other > then himself then I don't much care. If we have to call MS_SETUSER > as unprivileged users You don't. Unprivileged mounts _imply_ MS_SETUSER. > >> > + > >> > + uid_t mnt_uid; /* owner of the mount */ > >> > >> Can we please make this a user struct. That requires a bit of > >> reference counting but it has uid namespace benefits as well > >> as making it easy to implement per user mount rlimits. > > > > OK, can you ellaborate, what the uid namespace benifits are? > > In the uid namespace the comparison is simpler as are the propagations > rules. Basically if you use a struct user you will never need to > care about a uid namespace. If you don't we will have to tear through > this code another time. Well, OK. I'll do the user_struct thing then. Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
