Comment 18 for bug 1950321

I'm working on the Security review of GlusterFS, which I have not quite completed, but to offer a comment on fusermount-glusterfs binary, the Security team would strongly prefer to not have another setuid binary for this; the original setuid fusermount has had its own security history and we would not like to see a forked version that has unknown tracking of vulnerabilities, especially for something that upstream considers to be a non-standard usage.