Bug 136191

Summary:	mount options order is wrong for fstab-sync
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	David Zeuthen <davidz>
Component:	hal	Assignee:	David Zeuthen <davidz>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	mclasen, vader
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	EasyFix
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2004-10-19 01:35:22 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	123268

Description David Zeuthen 2004-10-18 17:32:01 UTC

Description of problem:

fstab-sync should put 'pamconsole', 'user', 'users' and possibly other
mount options first. This is due to the fact that mount(1) needs to
have e.g. 'exec' after e.g. 'user' because 'user' implies 'noexec'.
See the manual page for mount(1) for details.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

hal-0.4.0-3

Comment 1 Michal Jaegermann 2004-10-18 18:12:49 UTC

'man fstab-sync' does not seem to mention explicitely how an order of
options in, possibly, system administrator edited files translates
on generated option lines in /etc/fstab; if such relationship indeed
exists even if it should and should be clearly specified.

I would also think that a default 'noexec' is vastly preferable
in general to an 'exec' mount option and relaxing that should be left
to a sysadmin of a given system.

'man fstab-sync' should also stress that changes need to be _appended_
to other options and explicitly explain how to achieve that effect.

Comment 2 David Zeuthen 2004-10-19 01:35:22 UTC

Issue Should be fixed in hal-0.4.0-4.

> 'man fstab-sync' does not seem to mention explicitely how an order of
> options in, possibly, system administrator edited files translates
> on generated option lines in /etc/fstab; if such relationship indeed
> exists even if it should and should be clearly specified.

By reviewing the source code for mount(1) in util-linux one will find
that the only requirement on the order is that 'user', 'users',
'pamconsole' and 'defaults' needs to come before others as they other
imply options. Note that these four are, for all practical purposes,
mutually exclusive so the ordering between them is not neccessary to
take into account. Also note that the syscall mount(2) doesn't use
ordering as mount options is given as a union of bits.

> I would also think that a default 'noexec' is vastly preferable
> in general to an 'exec' mount option and relaxing that should be
> left to a sysadmin of a given system.

You will have to file another bug to discuss this in. I don't really
see any attack scenario though; what prevents Mallory from copying a
file to his home directory and chmod a+x it?

Comment 3 Need Real Name 2005-01-13 05:19:29 UTC

Because "Mallory's" home directory is ALSO mounted noexec.