> > > > 1) Only allow mount over a directory for which the user has write > > access (and is not sticky) > > > > 2) Use nosuid,nodev mount options > > > > [ parts deleted ] > > Do these solve all the security concerns with unprivileged mounts, or > are there other barriers/concerns? Should there be ulimit (or rlimit) > style restrictions on how many mounts/binds a user is allowed to have > to prevent users from abusing mount privs?
Currently there is a (configurable) global limit for all non-root FUSE mounts. An additional per-user limit would be nice, but from the security standpoint it doesn't matter. > I was thinking about this a while back and thought having a user-mount > permissions file might be the right way to address lots of these > issues. Essentially it would contain information about what > users/groups were allowed to mount what sources to what destinations > and with what mandatory options. I haven't yet seen the need for such a great flexibility. Debian installs fusermount (the FUSE mount utility) "-rwsr-x--- root fuse", so only users in the "fuse" group are allowed to use it. This is sane for a new technology, but I expect these limitations to be removed once it establishes itsef as a secure solution. > You can get the start of this with the user/users/etc. stuff in > /etc/fstab, but I was envisioning something a bit more dynamic with > regular expression based rules for sources and destinations. So, > something like: [snip] > Is this unnecessary? Is this not enough? Maybe it is necessary, but why bother until somebody actually wants it? I'm a great believer of the "lazy" development philosophy ;) Thanks, 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/
