Subject: Re: usermount semantics changed... Why?
To: Peter Seebach <email@example.com>
From: Martin Husemann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/10/2007 18:56:45
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 11:39:17AM -0500, Peter Seebach wrote:
> On my system, at least, it's not that they're the default -- it's that
> they're *not* the default, but without them, mount fails with EPERM.
Yes, I think this has been discussed quite some time ago on tech-kern.
When cleaning up the security related stuff and centralizing it in the
secmodel, there was no good way to pass such blatant layering violations
through to the secmodel via kauth.
Maybe, but I'm not sure about it, we should handle it in userland (i.e.
modify mount(8) to either print a helpful error message or to auto-add
the needed options.