[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181203215639.GV2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:56:39 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
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 Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:12:59AM +0100, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> I think I figured out what's the problem. NFS still creates the
> submount via the old vfs_submount() call, which calls
> vfs_kern_mount(), which creates an fs_context with
> FS_CONTEXT_FOR_USER_MOUNT because FS_CONTEXT_FOR_SUBMOUNT needs the
> mountpoint dentry reference and there is currently no way to pass that
> to vfs_kern_mount(). This is further complicated by the fact that
> vfs_submount() accepts only a const reference to the mountpoint, while
> vfs_new_fs_context() expects a non-const one...
>
> I think all users of the old vfs_submount call should be converted to
> the new API before the VFS changes are merged into mainline, otherwise
> they will break the SELinux submount fix. We could work around it in
> the SELinux hook by checking the fc->sb_flags[_mask] for SB_SUBMOUNT,
> but I guess that would be a hack.
Could you take a look at vfs.git#Q28? There's still a massive reshuffling
going on, so there will be more branches; this one is the latest at the
moment.
I really hate the situation around sb_clone_mnt_opts/sb_set_mnt_opts and
I'm none too fond of the way fs_context_validate is done, so there will
be quite a bit of LSM tweaking. If we are doing that, let's do it
right...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists