Reuben ua Bríฤก <u5644051@anu.edu.au> wrote:
> > Probably because testing for the situation would be an unreliable
> > race. BTW, you explain the ssh behaviour incorrectly. It does not
> > warn. It fails, and refuses to continue. Failure is not permitted
> > for the mount system call in this circumstance, and the entire path
> > upwards cannot be verified atomically. A racy warning also requires
> > warning to stderr. There are lots of complex considereations to your
> > handwavy propose.
>
> i would think the mount(8) command could examine each node of the path
> before the actual mount point and check that they are owned root:wheel
> and o-w. only root and wheel could run the race then.
I wonder why noone implimented such checks like that in the last 30 years.
Might be because it breaks more than it fixes.
No comments:
Post a Comment