On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:40:47 PST, dean gaudet said:
>
> > the main worry i have is some user maliciously hardlinks everything
> > under /var/log somewhere else and slowly fills up the file system with
> > old rotated logs.
>
> "Doctor, it hurts
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:40:47 PST, dean gaudet said:
> > See, this is where you show that you don't understand the system. I'll
> > explain it, just once. /var/home contains home directories. /var/log and
> > /var/home are on the same filesystem. So /var/log/* can be linked to
> >
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
> dean gaudet wrote:
> > > Pffuff. That's what volume managers are for! You do have (at least) two
> > > independent spindles in your RAID1 array, which give you less need to
> > > worry
> > > about head-stack contention.
> > >
> >
> > this
dean gaudet wrote:
Pffuff. That's what volume managers are for! You do have (at least) two
independent spindles in your RAID1 array, which give you less need to worry
about head-stack contention.
this system is write intensive and writes go to all spindles, so you're
assertion is wrong.
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
> dean gaudet wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Lord wrote:
> > >
> > > > But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
> > > > where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
dean gaudet wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying
dean gaudet wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I
dean gaudet wrote:
Pffuff. That's what volume managers are for! You do have (at least) two
independent spindles in your RAID1 array, which give you less need to worry
about head-stack contention.
this system is write intensive and writes go to all spindles, so you're
assertion is wrong.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
Pffuff. That's what volume managers are for! You do have (at least) two
independent spindles in your RAID1 array, which give you less need to
worry
about head-stack contention.
this system is write intensive
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:40:47 PST, dean gaudet said:
See, this is where you show that you don't understand the system. I'll
explain it, just once. /var/home contains home directories. /var/log and
/var/home are on the same filesystem. So /var/log/* can be linked to
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:40:47 PST, dean gaudet said:
the main worry i have is some user maliciously hardlinks everything
under /var/log somewhere else and slowly fills up the file system with
old rotated logs.
Doctor, it hurts when I do
On Dec 28 2007 22:02, dean gaudet wrote:
>
>i was trying to come up with a userland-only change in mount(8) which
>would behave like so:
>
># mount --subtree var /dev/md1 /var
> internally mount does:
> - mount /dev/md1 /tmpmnt
> - mount --bind /tmpmnt/var /var
> - umount /tmpmnt
>
># mount
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Dec 28 2007 18:53, dean gaudet wrote:
> >p.s. in retrospect i probably could have arranged it more like this:
> >
> > mount /dev/md1 $tmpmntpoint
> > mount --bind $tmpmntpoint/var /var
> > mount --bind $tmpmntpoint/home /home
> > umount
On Dec 28 2007 18:53, dean gaudet wrote:
>p.s. in retrospect i probably could have arranged it more like this:
>
> mount /dev/md1 $tmpmntpoint
> mount --bind $tmpmntpoint/var /var
> mount --bind $tmpmntpoint/home /home
> umount $tmpmntpoint
>
>except i can't easily specify that in fstab...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
> Mark Lord wrote:
> > But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
> > where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
>
> I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying filesystem.
> If you need
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying filesystem.
If you need to make
On Dec 28 2007 18:53, dean gaudet wrote:
p.s. in retrospect i probably could have arranged it more like this:
mount /dev/md1 $tmpmntpoint
mount --bind $tmpmntpoint/var /var
mount --bind $tmpmntpoint/home /home
umount $tmpmntpoint
except i can't easily specify that in fstab... and
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Dec 28 2007 18:53, dean gaudet wrote:
p.s. in retrospect i probably could have arranged it more like this:
mount /dev/md1 $tmpmntpoint
mount --bind $tmpmntpoint/var /var
mount --bind $tmpmntpoint/home /home
umount $tmpmntpoint
On Dec 28 2007 22:02, dean gaudet wrote:
i was trying to come up with a userland-only change in mount(8) which
would behave like so:
# mount --subtree var /dev/md1 /var
internally mount does:
- mount /dev/md1 /tmpmnt
- mount --bind /tmpmnt/var /var
- umount /tmpmnt
# mount --subtree
Mark Lord wrote:
> Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
> of the same underlying filesystem ?
do we need link(2) at all? bind mounts are supposed to be (hard/soft)
link minus the headaches.
--
Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for
Mark Lord wrote:
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
do we need link(2) at all? bind mounts are supposed to be (hard/soft)
link minus the headaches.
--
Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > Since nobody knows about this "security boundary" and everybody knows about
> > the annoying "can't link across bind-mountpoints bug",
>
> ... how about teaching people to RTFM? Starting,
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Since nobody knows about this security boundary and everybody knows about
the annoying can't link across bind-mountpoints bug,
... how about teaching people to RTFM? Starting, perhaps, with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Whenever we get mount -r --bind working properly (which I use to place
copies of necessary shared libraries inside chroot jails while allowing
page cache sharing),
> Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
> of the same underlying filesystem ?
Whenever we get mount -r --bind working properly (which I use to place
copies of necessary shared libraries inside chroot jails while allowing
page cache sharing), this feature would break
Mark Lord wrote:
David Newall wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying
filesystem. If you need to make it on
David Newall wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying
filesystem. If you need to make it on the bound mount,
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Since nobody knows about this "security boundary" and everybody knows about
the annoying "can't link across bind-mountpoints bug",
... how about teaching people to RTFM? Starting, perhaps, with man 2 link?
..
Hi Al,
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
>
>> Since nobody knows about this "security boundary" and everybody knows about
>> the annoying "can't link across bind-mountpoints bug",
>
> ... how about teaching people to RTFM?
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Since nobody knows about this "security boundary" and everybody knows about
> the annoying "can't link across bind-mountpoints bug",
... how about teaching people to RTFM? Starting, perhaps, with man 2 link?
--
To unsubscribe from
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:00:16PM +, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
>> > Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
>> > of the same underlying filesystem ?
>>
>> Because it gives you
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:00:16PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Because it gives you a security
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Since nobody knows about this security boundary and everybody knows about
the annoying can't link across bind-mountpoints bug,
... how about teaching people to RTFM? Starting, perhaps, with man 2 link?
--
To unsubscribe from this
Hi Al,
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Since nobody knows about this security boundary and everybody knows about
the annoying can't link across bind-mountpoints bug,
... how about teaching people to RTFM? Starting, perhaps,
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Since nobody knows about this security boundary and everybody knows about
the annoying can't link across bind-mountpoints bug,
... how about teaching people to RTFM? Starting, perhaps, with man 2 link?
..
Mmm..
David Newall wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying
filesystem. If you need to make it on the bound mount,
Mark Lord wrote:
David Newall wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying
filesystem. If you need to make it on
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Whenever we get mount -r --bind working properly (which I use to place
copies of necessary shared libraries inside chroot jails while allowing
page cache sharing), this feature would break
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Whenever we get mount -r --bind working properly (which I use to place
copies of necessary shared libraries inside chroot jails while allowing
page cache sharing),
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying
filesystem. If you need to make it on the bound mount, that is, if you
can't
Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:00:16PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Because it gives you a security boundary around a subtree.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:00:16PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> > Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
> > of the same underlying filesystem ?
>
> Because it gives you a security boundary around a subtree.
PS:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
> of the same underlying filesystem ?
Because it gives you a security boundary around a subtree.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Mark Lord wrote:
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Is it as simple as something like this patch below (minus the printk)?
Not likely, but then I'm not a filesystem guru.
???
--- old/fs/namei.c2007-12-15
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Is it as simple as something like this patch below (minus the printk)?
Not likely, but then I'm not a filesystem guru.
???
--- old/fs/namei.c 2007-12-15 12:33:13.0 -0500
+++
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Is it as simple as something like this patch below (minus the printk)?
Not likely, but then I'm not a filesystem guru.
???
--- old/fs/namei.c 2007-12-15 12:33:13.0 -0500
+++
Mark Lord wrote:
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Is it as simple as something like this patch below (minus the printk)?
Not likely, but then I'm not a filesystem guru.
???
--- old/fs/namei.c2007-12-15
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Because it gives you a security boundary around a subtree.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:00:16PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Because it gives you a security boundary around a subtree.
PS: that
Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:00:16PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:46:21PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points
of the same underlying filesystem ?
Because it gives you a security boundary around a subtree.
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying
filesystem. If you need to make it on the bound mount, that is, if you
can't
52 matches
Mail list logo
