On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 07:43:54AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 02:13:27PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > A but on XFS cause renameat2() with flags=RENAME_WHITEOUT doesn't
> > apply an selinux label. That's quite different with other fs (e.g.
> > ext4, tmpfs).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Thanks the review points from Amir, this v2 did below changes:
> > 1) Add "whiteout" group
> > 2) Add commit ID from xfs-linux xfs-5.20-merge-2 (will change if need)
> > 3) Rebase to latest fstests for-next branch
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zorro
> >
> > tests/generic/693 | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > tests/generic/693.out | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100755 tests/generic/693
> > create mode 100644 tests/generic/693.out
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/693 b/tests/generic/693
> > new file mode 100755
> > index 00000000..adf191c4
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/generic/693
> > @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
> > +#! /bin/bash
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +# Copyright (c) 2022 Red Hat, Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
> > +#
> > +# FS QA Test No. 693
> > +#
> > +# Verify selinux label can be kept after RENAME_WHITEOUT. This is
> > +# a regression test for:
> > +# 70b589a37e1a ("xfs: add selinux labels to whiteout inodes")
> > +#
> > +. ./common/preamble
> > +_begin_fstest auto quick rename attr whiteout
> > +
> > +# Import common functions.
> > +. ./common/attr
> > +. ./common/renameat2
> > +
> > +# real QA test starts here
> > +_supported_fs generic
> > +_require_scratch
> > +_require_attrs
> > +_require_renameat2 whiteout
> > +
> > +_fixed_by_kernel_commit 70b589a37e1a \
> > + xfs: add selinux labels to whiteout inodes
> > +
> > +get_selinux_label()
> > +{
> > + local label
> > +
> > + label=`_getfattr --absolute-names -n security.selinux $@ | sed -n 's/security.selinux=\"\(.*\)\"/\1/p'`
> > + if [ ${PIPESTATUS[0]} -ne 0 -o -z "$label" ];then
> > + _fail "Fail to get selinux label: $label"
> > + fi
> > + echo $label
> > +}
> > +
> > +_scratch_mkfs >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > +# SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS will be set in common/config if selinux is enabled
> > +if [ -z "$SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS" ]; then
> > + _notrun "Require selinux to be enabled"
> > +fi
> > +# This test need to verify selinux labels in objects, so unset this selinux
> > +# mount option
> > +export SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS=""
> > +_scratch_mount
> > +
> > +touch $SCRATCH_MNT/f1
> > +echo "Before RENAME_WHITEOUT" >> $seqres.full
> > +ls -lZ $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > +# Expect f1 and f2 have same label after RENAME_WHITEOUT
> > +$here/src/renameat2 -w $SCRATCH_MNT/f1 $SCRATCH_MNT/f2
> > +echo "After RENAME_WHITEOUT" >> $seqres.full
> > +ls -lZ $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > +label1=`get_selinux_label $SCRATCH_MNT/f1`
> > +label2=`get_selinux_label $SCRATCH_MNT/f2`
>
> The operations of this test look ok to me, but the piece I do not know
> is the higher level context of whether or not it's appropriate for
> whiteout inodes to have selinux labels, or if the selinux developers
> even care. Perhaps they should be cc'd? (And maybe I should've made
> Eric do that for the kernel patch...sigh...)
Hi Eric,
May you help to review this patch :)
Thanks,
Zorro
>
> --D
>
> > +if [ "$label1" != "$label2" ];then
> > + echo "$label1 != $label2"
> > +fi
> > +
> > +echo "Silence is golden"
> > +# success, all done
> > +status=0
> > +exit
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/693.out b/tests/generic/693.out
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000..01884ea5
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/generic/693.out
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > +QA output created by 693
> > +Silence is golden
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> >
>
