[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpeguJoEOEjQs4ZpJQaJXF-xCnevUApzNobwmqNX27KQ4vHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:39:32 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
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 4:32 PM Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> Ok, I concede the point. Not sure what that means though for v4.20.
I have the revert queued up for v4.20 as that's the safest.
Don't let that stop the discussion, though, I'd especially like to
hear the arguments from the Android side.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists