On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Casey Schaufler
wrote:
> On 7/31/2015 1:11 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Casey Schaufler
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2015 7:47 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Seth Forshee
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3
On 7/31/2015 1:11 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Casey Schaufler
> wrote:
>> On 7/30/2015 7:47 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Seth Forshee
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 07:24:11AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, J
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/30/2015 7:47 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Seth Forshee
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 07:24:11AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Seth Forshee
wrote:
>>>
Seth Forshee writes:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:05:27PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Casey Schaufler writes:
>>
>> > On 7/28/2015 1:40 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> This is what I currently think you want for user
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:05:27PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Casey Schaufler writes:
>
> > On 7/28/2015 1:40 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> This is what I currently think you want for user ns mounts:
>
> 1. s
Casey Schaufler writes:
> On 7/28/2015 1:40 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
This is what I currently think you want for user ns mounts:
1. smk_root and smk_default are assigned the label of the backing
device.
>>
Colin Walters writes:
> It's worth noting here that I think a lot of the use cases
> for unprivileged mounts are testing/development type things,
> and these are pretty well covered by:
>
> http://libguestfs.org/
>
> Basically it just runs the host kernel in a VM, and the userspace
> is a minimal
On 7/28/2015 1:40 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>> This is what I currently think you want for user ns mounts:
>>>
>>> 1. smk_root and smk_default are assigned the label of the backing
>>> device.
>>> 2. s_root is assigned the tran
It's worth noting here that I think a lot of the use cases
for unprivileged mounts are testing/development type things,
and these are pretty well covered by:
http://libguestfs.org/
Basically it just runs the host kernel in a VM, and the userspace
is a minimal agent that you can talk to over virti
On 7/30/2015 7:47 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Seth Forshee
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 07:24:11AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Seth Forshee
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrot
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Amir Goldstein (a...@cellrox.com):
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Seth Forshee
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> > > > This is what I currently think you want for user ns mou
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Seth Forshee
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 07:24:11AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Seth Forshee
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > > > This is what I currently th
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 07:24:11AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Seth Forshee
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > > This is what I currently think you want for user ns mounts:
> > > >
> > > > 1. smk_root and sm
Quoting Amir Goldstein (a...@cellrox.com):
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Seth Forshee
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > > This is what I currently think you want for user ns mounts:
> > > >
> > > > 1. smk_root and smk_default are assigne
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Seth Forshee
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > This is what I currently think you want for user ns mounts:
> > >
> > > 1. smk_root and smk_default are assigned the label of the backing
> > > device.
Seth,
Ther
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > This is what I currently think you want for user ns mounts:
> >
> > 1. smk_root and smk_default are assigned the label of the backing
> > device.
> > 2. s_root is assigned the transmute property.
> > 3. For existing files:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:19:28AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:51:35AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 01:41:00PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:52:58PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > > > On 2015-07-22 10:0
On 7/22/2015 5:15 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Casey Schaufler writes:
>
>> On 7/22/2015 12:32 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:10:46AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
On 7/22/2015 8:56 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:52:31PM -0700, Casey Schaufl
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:51:35AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 01:41:00PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:52:58PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > > On 2015-07-22 10:09, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > >On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:56:40PM +1000
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:15:19PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Casey Schaufler writes:
>
> > On 7/22/2015 12:32 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:10:46AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >>> On 7/22/2015 8:56 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:52:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 01:41:00PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:52:58PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > On 2015-07-22 10:09, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:56:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 01:37:21PM -0400,
Casey Schaufler writes:
> On 7/22/2015 12:32 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:10:46AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2015 8:56 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:52:31PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/21/2015 1:35 PM, Seth Forshee wro
On 7/22/2015 12:32 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:10:46AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 7/22/2015 8:56 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:52:31PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
On 7/21/2015 1:35 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 a
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:10:46AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/22/2015 8:56 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:52:31PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> On 7/21/2015 1:35 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 05:59:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
On 7/22/2015 8:56 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:52:31PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 7/21/2015 1:35 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 05:59:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Casey Schaufler
wrote:
> On
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:52:58PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-07-22 10:09, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:56:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 01:37:21PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:47:35PM +1000, Dav
On 2015-07-22 10:09, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:56:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 01:37:21PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:47:35PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
So, for example, a screwed up on-disk directory structure shou
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:52:31PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/21/2015 1:35 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 05:59:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Casey Schaufler
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 7/16/2015 4:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:56:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 01:37:21PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:47:35PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > Dave Chinner writes:
>
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 01:37:21PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:47:35PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Dave Chinner writes:
> > > > The key difference is that desktops only do this when you physi
On 7/21/2015 1:35 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 05:59:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Casey Schaufler
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2015 4:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I really don't see the benefit of making up extra rules that apply to
>>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 05:59:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Casey Schaufler
> wrote:
> > On 7/16/2015 4:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> I really don't see the benefit of making up extra rules that apply to
> >> users outside a userns who try to access sp
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:47:35PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Dave Chinner writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:47:08PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > >> Casey Schaufler writes:
> > >> > On 7/15/2015 6:08 PM, A
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015, at 12:47 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> With that said desktop environments have for a long time been
> automatically mounting whichever filesystem you place in your computer,
> so in practice what this is really about is trying to align the kernel
> with how people use files
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Chinner writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:47:08PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Casey Schaufler writes:
> >> > On 7/15/2015 6:08 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> If I mount an unprivileged filesystem, then
On 7/17/2015 6:21 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:42:22PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
>
>
>>> I welcome feedback about anything I've missed, but stating generally
>>> that you think I probably missed something isn't very helpful.
>> True enough. I hope I've explained mysel
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 09:28:32AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > If you're going to be at LinuxCon in Seattle we should
> > > continue this discussion over the beverage of your choice.
> >
> > There's a small but not quite zero chance I'll be there. I'll
> > probably be in Seoul. It's too
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 05:59:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Casey Schaufler
> wrote:
> > On 7/16/2015 4:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> I really don't see the benefit of making up extra rules that apply to
> >> users outside a userns who try to access sp
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:42:22PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > I welcome feedback about anything I've missed, but stating generally
> > that you think I probably missed something isn't very helpful.
>
> True enough. I hope I've explained myself above.
Thanks, that definitely clarified wh
On czw, 2015-07-16 at 19:10 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Lukasz Pawelczyk writes:
> >
> > I fail to see how those 2 are in any conflict.
>
> Like I said. They don't really conflict, and actually to really
> support
> things well for smack we probably need something like your patches.
As
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:42:03PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Chinner writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:47:08PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Casey Schaufler writes:
> >> > On 7/15/2015 6:08 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> If I mount an unprivileged filesystem, then
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/16/2015 4:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I really don't see the benefit of making up extra rules that apply to
>> users outside a userns who try to access specifically a filesystem
>> with backing store. They wouldn't make sense for
Dave Chinner writes:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:47:08PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Casey Schaufler writes:
>> > On 7/15/2015 6:08 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> If I mount an unprivileged filesystem, then either the contents were
>> >> put there *by me*, in which case letting me acce
On 7/16/2015 4:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Casey Schaufler
> wrote:
>> On 7/16/2015 3:27 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Casey Schaufler
>>> wrote:
You want to provide a mechanism whereby an unprivileged user (Seth)
Lukasz Pawelczyk writes:
> On śro, 2015-07-15 at 16:06 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> I am on the fence with Lukasz Pawelczyk's patches. Some parts I
>> liked
>> some parts I had issues with. As I recall one of my issues was that
>> those patches conflicted in detail if not in principl
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:47:08PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Casey Schaufler writes:
> > On 7/15/2015 6:08 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> If I mount an unprivileged filesystem, then either the contents were
> >> put there *by me*, in which case letting me access them are fine, or
> >> (wi
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/16/2015 3:27 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Casey Schaufler
>> wrote:
>>> You want to provide a mechanism whereby an unprivileged user (Seth)
>>> can mount a filesystem for his own use. You want full f
On 7/16/2015 3:27 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Casey Schaufler
> wrote:
>> You want to provide a mechanism whereby an unprivileged user (Seth)
>> can mount a filesystem for his own use. You want full filesystem
>> semantics, but you're willing to accept restrictio
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> You want to provide a mechanism whereby an unprivileged user (Seth)
> can mount a filesystem for his own use. You want full filesystem
> semantics, but you're willing to accept restrictions on certain
> filesystem features to avoid opening
On 7/16/2015 11:57 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 08:09:20AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 7/16/2015 6:59 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Seth I think for the LSMs we should start with:
diff --git
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 08:09:20AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/16/2015 6:59 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Seth I think for the LSMs we should start with:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 08:59:47AM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > Seth I think for the LSMs we should start with:
> >
> > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > index 062f3c997fdc..5b6ece92a8e5 100644
> >
On 7/16/2015 6:59 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Seth I think for the LSMs we should start with:
>>
>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
>> index 062f3c997fdc..5b6ece92a8e5 100644
>> --- a/security/security.c
>> +
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Seth I think for the LSMs we should start with:
>
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index 062f3c997fdc..5b6ece92a8e5 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -310,6 +310,8 @@
On 07/15/2015 09:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2015 3:34 PM, "Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
>>
>> Seth Forshee writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:06:35PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Casey Schaufler writes:
> On 7/15/2015 12:46 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> Thes
On śro, 2015-07-15 at 16:06 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> I am on the fence with Lukasz Pawelczyk's patches. Some parts I
> liked
> some parts I had issues with. As I recall one of my issues was that
> those patches conflicted in detail if not in principle with this
> appropach.
>
> If t
Casey Schaufler writes:
> On 7/15/2015 6:08 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Casey Schaufler
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2015 2:06 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Casey Schaufler writes:
The first step needs to be not trusting those labels and treating such
Seth I think for the LSMs we should start with:
diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index 062f3c997fdc..5b6ece92a8e5 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -310,6 +310,8 @@ int security_sb_statfs(struct dentry *dentry)
int security_sb_mount(const char *d
On 7/15/2015 6:08 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Casey Schaufler
> wrote:
>> On 7/15/2015 2:06 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Casey Schaufler writes:
>>> The first step needs to be not trusting those labels and treating such
>>> filesystems as filesystems without
Andy Lutomirski writes:
> On Jul 15, 2015 3:34 PM, "Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
>>
>> Seth Forshee writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:06:35PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Casey Schaufler writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On 7/15/2015 12:46 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> >> >> These are the firs
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/15/2015 2:06 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Casey Schaufler writes:
>
>> The first step needs to be not trusting those labels and treating such
>> filesystems as filesystems without label support. I hope that is Seth
>> has implemen
On Jul 15, 2015 3:34 PM, "Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
>
> Seth Forshee writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:06:35PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Casey Schaufler writes:
> >>
> >> > On 7/15/2015 12:46 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> >> >> These are the first in a larger set of patches that I'
On 7/15/2015 2:48 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:06:35PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Casey Schaufler writes:
>>
>>> On 7/15/2015 12:46 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
These are the first in a larger set of patches that I've been working on
(with help from Eric Bieder
On 7/15/2015 2:06 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Casey Schaufler writes:
>
>> On 7/15/2015 12:46 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>>> These are the first in a larger set of patches that I've been working on
>>> (with help from Eric Biederman) to support mounting ext4 and fuse
>>> filesystems from within us
Seth Forshee writes:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:06:35PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Casey Schaufler writes:
>>
>> > On 7/15/2015 12:46 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> >> These are the first in a larger set of patches that I've been working on
>> >> (with help from Eric Biederman) to support
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:06:35PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Casey Schaufler writes:
>
> > On 7/15/2015 12:46 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> >> These are the first in a larger set of patches that I've been working on
> >> (with help from Eric Biederman) to support mounting ext4 and fuse
> >> f
Casey Schaufler writes:
> On 7/15/2015 12:46 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> These are the first in a larger set of patches that I've been working on
>> (with help from Eric Biederman) to support mounting ext4 and fuse
>> filesystems from within user namespaces. I've pushed the full series to:
>>
>>
On 7/15/2015 12:46 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> These are the first in a larger set of patches that I've been working on
> (with help from Eric Biederman) to support mounting ext4 and fuse
> filesystems from within user namespaces. I've pushed the full series to:
>
> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/sforshee
These are the first in a larger set of patches that I've been working on
(with help from Eric Biederman) to support mounting ext4 and fuse
filesystems from within user namespaces. I've pushed the full series to:
git://kernel.ubuntu.com/sforshee/linux.git userns-mounts
Taking the series as a who
69 matches
Mail list logo
