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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 Dec 2018 04:10:02 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the vfs tree

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 02:48:58PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   security/selinux/hooks.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   2b8073b14c19 ("LSM: split ->sb_set_mnt_opts() out of ->sb_kern_mount()")
> 
> from the vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   2cbdcb882f97 ("selinux: always allow mounting submounts")
> 
> from the selinux tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree version, plus added the following
> patch but I am not sure if it is correct as the latter patch only affected
> selinux) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as
> linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned
> to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.
> You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the
> conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
 
> -	if (!(fc->sb_flags & MS_KERNMOUNT)) {
> +	if (!(fc->sb_flags & (MS_KERNMOUNT | MS_SUBMOUNT))) {

It is correct, but the long-term fix is to lift the conditional part out
of vfs_get_tree() into the callers (as discussed a couple of weeks ago).
I have it in a local branch, need to ripple it into the current main series...