[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtFVvq286HAorGLg6ywMsfs51KqaQwFkcuV7Dtu8TLaLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:31:09 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: overlayfs access checks on underlying layers
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:22 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> Having said that, this still create little anomaly when mknod to client
> is not allowed on context label. So a device file, which is on lower
> and client can not open it for read/write on host, it can now be opened
> for read/write because mounter will allow access. So why it is different
> that regular copy up. Well, in regular copy up, we created a copy of
> the original object and allowed writing to that object (cp --preserve=all)
> model. But in case of device file, writes will go to same original
> object. (And not a separate copy).
That's true.
In that sense copy up of special file should result in upper having
the same label as of lower, right?
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists