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]

Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:57:20 -0800
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     omosnace@...hat.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the vfs tree

On 11/29/2018 3:51 PM, Al Viro wrote:

I've added linux-security-module to the CC list.

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:23:24PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The big thing is just making sure that we don't regress on the fix in
>> selinux/next if/when David's mount rework hits Linus' tree.
> FWIW, the whole thing is getting massaged/reordered/etc. and I would
> like some input from you guys at some point - assuming that I recover
> the ability to talk about LSM without obscenities...
>
> Question: what *should* happen if we try to cross into a submount and find
> that the thing on the other side is already mounted elsewhere, with incompatible
> LSM options?  Ditto for referrals, with an extra twist - what if we are given
> 3 alternatives, the first two already mounted elsewhere with incompatible
> options, the third one not mounted anywhere yet?

I fear that the safe answer and the containers answer are likely
to differ. The safe answer has to be to refuse the mount.

> Incidentally, should smack have ->sb_clone_mnt_opts()?

Probably, but I could never figure out what it was for,
and haven't identified a problem with not using it.