On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:42:45PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > No, they are not. User mounts are a well-established concept, and > > smbmnt behaves inconsistently with respect to them.
> I agree that the case you showed is broken. In that case, root has > implicitly granted fiddling permission in the given directory through > the fstab entry, so no more checks should be required. When running > smbmount from the shell, however, there has got to be some check or > else you could overwrite any directory whatsoever. I don't know of any > precedent how that sort of thing should be handled. I think that the > owner check should be enough, though. Maybe the permission mode check > should just be removed? Yes, the problem really is that smbmount and mount.smbfs are the same binary, but require different semantics. The permission check is intended in the case of smbmount, but is wrong for mount.smbfs. > Any other ideas how to handle this (modulo the ever-popular opinion of not > making the binaries setuid :) ) ? I'm hoping that mount.cifs gets it right, or if not, that it can be made to get it right since it's maintained upstream. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
