sshfs vs. shfs

airman99 · 07-17-2007, 08:31 PM

Anybody had experience enough with shfs and/or sshfs to compare/contrast the two? I'm having difficulty with shfs and a 2.6.20 linux kernel, but sshfs doesn't deal with file permissions quite as seamlessly.

Just looking for opinions and likes/dislikes for the two.

macemoneta · 07-18-2007, 02:54 PM

I had some permission problems with sshfs until I added some options ("sshfs --help" for details):

Code:

sshfs -o follow_symlinks,reconnect,workaround=rename user@host: /some/directory/

airman99 · 07-18-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macemoneta

I had some permission problems with sshfs until I added some options ("sshfs --help" for details):

Code:

sshfs -o follow_symlinks,reconnect,workaround=rename user@host: /some/directory/

Does this solve the problem/feature that all users accessing a mounted share have mount-owner privileges on that share? In other words, if root mounts a volume with the allow_other option set, then any action that user bob takes on that mounted share will be with the privileges that root has. In other words, bob can now delete files on the mounted share that he normally would not be allowed to, just because the share was mounted by root originally.

airman99 · 07-18-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airman99

Does this solve the problem/feature that all users accessing a mounted share have mount-owner privileges on that share? In other words, if root mounts a volume with the allow_other option set, then any action that user bob takes on that mounted share will be with the privileges that root has. In other words, bob can now delete files on the mounted share that he normally would not be allowed to, just because the share was mounted by root originally.

Well, looks like the option default_permissions takes care of the above issue and causes the kernel to check permissions like what would occur on a local volume.

That's what happens when you sit down and actually read the documentation. :-)