> > On Apr 21 2007 10:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >>> tmpfs!
> >>
> >>tmpfs is a possible problem because it can consume lots of ram/swap.
> >>Which is why it has limits on the amount of space it can consume.
> >
> > Users can gobble up all RAM and swap already today. (Unless they are
>
On Apr 21 2007 10:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
tmpfs!
tmpfs is a possible problem because it can consume lots of ram/swap.
Which is why it has limits on the amount of space it can consume.
Users can gobble up all RAM and swap already today. (Unless they are
confined into an
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
>> > mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
> > mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
> >
> > Since most filesystems
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Apr 21 2007 10:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>> tmpfs!
>>
>>tmpfs is a possible problem because it can consume lots of ram/swap.
>>Which is why it has limits on the amount of space it can consume.
>
> Users can gobble up all RAM and swap
On Apr 21 2007 10:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> tmpfs!
>
>tmpfs is a possible problem because it can consume lots of ram/swap.
>Which is why it has limits on the amount of space it can consume.
Users can gobble up all RAM and swap already today. (Unless they are
confined into an rlimit,
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Apr 21 2007 08:10, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with
On Apr 21 2007 08:10, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>> Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
>>> mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
>>>
>>> Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
>>> mounting in mind, a thorough
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
>> mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
>>
>> Since most filesystems haven't
> >
> > > Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
> > > mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
> > >
> > > Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
> > > mounting in mind, a thorough audit is needed before setting this
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
> > mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
> >
> > Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
> >
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
> mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
>
> Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
> mounting in
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
mounting in mind, a
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
mounting in
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
mounting in mind, a thorough audit is needed before setting this flag.
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed
On Apr 21 2007 08:10, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
mounting in mind, a thorough audit is needed
Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Apr 21 2007 08:10, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
mounting
On Apr 21 2007 10:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
tmpfs!
tmpfs is a possible problem because it can consume lots of ram/swap.
Which is why it has limits on the amount of space it can consume.
Users can gobble up all RAM and swap already today. (Unless they are
confined into an rlimit, which,
Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Apr 21 2007 10:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
tmpfs!
tmpfs is a possible problem because it can consume lots of ram/swap.
Which is why it has limits on the amount of space it can consume.
Users can gobble up all RAM and swap already today. (Unless
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
From: Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
mounting in mind, a thorough audit is needed before setting
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
mounting in mind, a thorough audit is needed before setting this
26 matches
Mail list logo