[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQKVdbLNn=eOqebWaktDVeq5bjTjXea68MmcAhKoSa09w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 21:25:17 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
Cc: Scott Mayhew <smayhew@...hat.com>,
SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nfs <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] selinux: Fix selinux_sb_mnt_opts_compat()
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:54 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> I wonder if we could make this all much simpler by *always* doing the
> label parsing in selinux_add_opt() and just returning an error when
> !selinux_initialized(&selinux_state). Before the new mount API, mount
> options were always passed directly to the mount(2) syscall, so it
> wasn't possible to pass any SELinux mount options before the SELinux
> policy was loaded. I don't see why we need to jump through hoops here
> just to support this pseudo-feature of stashing an unparsed label into
> an fs_context before policy is loaded... Userspace should never need
> to do that.
I could agree with that, although part of my mind is a little nervous
about the "userspace should *never* ..." because that always seems to
bite us. Although I'm struggling to think of a case where userspace
would need to set explicit SELinux mount options without having a
policy loaded.
--
paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists