On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 09:27 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:11:10 -0500 > Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is going to use the same superblock but the context= needs to the > > same. There is no was to reconcile the 2, so we just reject the second > > mount. > > > > We could just not share superblocks in that case. Maybe add a new > condition to nfs_compare_mount_options()? When that returns 0 now, I > believe we spin off a new superblock. I'll add it to my list of things to look at for .26. nfs_compare_mount_options doesn't have all the data the LSM would need but nfs_compare_super probably does. The selinux code is not going to change in this regard since most FS don't have such a nice 'just use a new one' option and the LSM should make sure it isn't doing things under the covers the user wasn't expecting. Using this feature is not going to clean up the necessity for that little if statement you were looking at but I can probably make NFS and multiple lsm options play nicer together in a future patch. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
