linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the vfs tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAFqZXNuZCof=7CtyMq8JDyAgRmONYRZhhqr6bFVy9-F70-Uwrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:07:21 +0100
From:   Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the vfs tree

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:52 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:50 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > Hi Ondrej,
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 09:53:32 +0100 Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hm... seems that there was some massive overhaul in the VFS code right
> > > at the wrong moment... There are new hooks for mounting now and the
> >
> > The mount changes have been in linux-next since before the last
> > release ...
> >
> > > code that our commit changes is now here:
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git/tree/security/selinux/hooks.c?h=for-next#n3131
> > >
> > > It seems that the logic is still the same, just now our patch (or the
> > > VFS one) needs to be updated to change the above line as such
> > > (untested pseudo-patch):
> > >
> > > - if (fc->purpose == FS_CONTEXT_FOR_KERNEL_MOUNT)
> > > + if (fc->purpose == (FS_CONTEXT_FOR_KERNEL_MOUNT|FS_CONTEXT_FOR_SUBMOUNT))
> >
> > OK, so from tomorrow I will use that merge resolution.  Someone needs
> > to remember to tell Linus about this when the latter of the vfs and
> > selinux trees reach him.
>
> I will, or at least I'll do my best to remember; since we only have a
> few more week until the merge window I like my odds.  FWIW, I
> typically do a test merge on top of Linus' tree before sending the
> SELinux PR just to verify that everything is relatively clean and
> there are no surprises.
>
> Ondrej, please work with David Howells to ensure that submounts are
> handled correctly in his mount rework.

OK, I will verify that the SELinux submount fix rebased on top of
vfs/work.mount in the way I suggested above passes the same testing
(seliinux-testsuite + NFS crossmnt reproducer). I am now building two
kernels (vfs/work.mount with and without the fix) to test. Let me know
if there is anything more to do.

Thanks,

--
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.