[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 20:19:25 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
apparmor@...ts.ubuntu.com,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
tomoyo-dev-en@...ts.sourceforge.jp, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Subject: Re: BUG: Mount ignores mount options
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a serious problem with mount options today that fsopen does not
>> address. The problem is that mount options are ignored for block based
>> filesystems, and any other type of filesystem that follows the same
>> pattern.
>
> Yes. Since you *absolutely* *insist* on this being fixed *right* *now* *or*
> *else*, I'm working up a set of additional patches to give userspace the
> option of whether they want no sharing; sharing, but only with exactly the
> same parameters; or to ignore the parameter differences and just accept
> sharing of what's already already mounted (ie. the current behaviour).
>
> The second option, however, is not trivial as it needs to compare the fs
> contexts, including the LSM parameters. To make that work, I really need to
> remove the old security_mnt_opts stuff - which means I need to port btrfs to
> the new context stuff.
>
> We discussed this yesterday, and I proposed a solution, and I'm working on it.
I repeated this because after some comments from Al on IRC yesterday
and Miklos's email replay. It appeared clear that I had not specified
why my issue was clearly enough for people reading the thread to
understand the problem that I see.
> Yes, I agree it would be nice to have, but it *doesn't* really need supporting
> right this minute, since what I have now oughtn't to break the current
> behaviour.
I am really reluctant to endorse anything that propagates the issues of
the current interface in the new mount interface.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists