On Wed 2008-01-09 09:47:31, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > >> On Tue 2008-01-08 12:35:09, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > >>> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
> > >>>
> > >>> Use FS_SAFE for "fuse" fs type, but not for "fuseblk".
> > >>>
> > >>> FUSE was designed from the beginning to be safe for unprivileged users.  This
> > >>> has also been verified in practice over many years.  In addition unprivileged
> > >> Eh? So 'kill -9 no longer works' and 'suspend no longer works' is not
> > >> considered important enough to even mention?
> > > 
> > > No.  Because in practice they don't seem to matter.  Also because
> > > there's no way in which fuse could be done differently to address
> > > these issues.
> > 
> > Could you clarify, please? I hope I'm getting the wrong end of the stick
> > - it sounds to me like you and Pavel are saying that this patch breaks
> > suspending to ram (and hibernating?) but you want to push it anyway
> > because you haven't been able to produce an instance, don't think
> > suspending or hibernating matter and couldn't fix fuse anyway?
> 
> This patch has nothing to do with suspend or hibernate.  What this
> patchset does, is help get rid of fusermount, a suid-root mount
> helper.  It also opens up new possibilities, which are not fuse
> related.
> 
> Fuse has bad interactions with the freezer, theoretically.  In
> practice, I remember just one bug report (that sparked off this whole
> "do we need freezer, or don't we" flamefest), that actually got fixed
> fairly quickly, ...maybe.  Rafael probably remembers better.

In practice, if the "unpriviledged fuse" gets enabled, any user can
prevent suspend/hibernation from working.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers