linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] vfs, security: Fix automount superblock LSM init problem, preventing NFS sb sharing

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 06:47:52 -0700
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>,
        Scott Mayhew <smayhew@...hat.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dwysocha@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] vfs, security: Fix automount superblock LSM init
 problem, preventing NFS sb sharing

On 8/30/2022 1:49 AM, David Howells wrote:
> Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
>> The authors of this version of the mount code failed to look
>> especially closely at how Smack maintains label names. Once a
>> label name is used in the kernel it is kept on a list forever.
>> All the copies of smk_known here and in the rest of the mount
>> infrastructure are unnecessary and wasteful. The entire set of
>> Smack hooks that deal with mounting need to be reworked to remove
>> that waste. It's on my list of Smack cleanups, but I'd be happy
>> if someone else wanted a go at it.
> I don't have time to overhaul Smack right now.  Should I drop the Smack part
> of the patch?

No. I appreciate that you're including Smack as part of the effort.
I would much rather have the code working as you have it than have
to go in later and do it all from scratch. With luck I should be able
to get someone with a considerably lower level of expertise to work
on it.

> David