On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:17 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 02:28:51PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Thursday, June 04, 2015 03:57:25 PM J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> > From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Before calling into the filesystem, vfs_setxattr calls >> > security_inode_setxattr, which ends up calling selinux_inode_setxattr in >> > our case. That returns -EOPNOTSUPP whenever SBLABEL_MNT is not set. >> > SBLABEL_MNT was supposed to be set by sb_finish_set_opts, which sets it >> > only if selinux_is_sblabel_mnt returns true. >> > >> > The selinux_is_sblabel_mnt logic was broken by eadcabc697e9 "SELinux: do >> > all flags twiddling in one place", which didn't take into the account >> > the SECURITY_FS_USE_NATIVE behavior that had been introduced for nfs >> > with eb9ae686507b "SELinux: Add new labeling type native labels". >> > >> > This caused setxattr's of security labels over NFSv4.2 to fail. >> > >> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx >> > Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: David Quigley <dpquigl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Reported-by: Richard Chan <rc556677@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > security/selinux/hooks.c | 1 + >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> Applied, thanks. > > Thanks! > >> In the future, you don't have to worry about marking it for >> stable, I'll take care of that when I merge it into the tree. > > OK. With roles reversed, I usually appreciate the stable tag from > submitters, just as a statement of their opinion as to whether it's > stable-worthy, which can always be overridden. Every subsystem is different, but in general I haven't found it too difficult to determine if a given patch is stable worthy; on the rare occasion that I'm uncertain I'll ask the submitter for their opinion. I wouldn't say I discourage people from adding a stable tag, it is just that I don't require people to add one to make it into my stable queue, and I don't automatically add it to the queue if the poster does tag it so (although that said, I don't recall ever removing a stable CC). > (I mean, this one seems obvious enough--one-liner, fixes a user-visible > regression--but in more complicated cases their opinion might be > useful.) This patch is definitely a stable no-brainer. > By the way, I suspect this requires (obvious) fixups to apply to some > older kernels, let me know if help's needed there. It may, I generally wait until the stable devs pick it up and if they hit a merge conflict I fix it up, however, since you offered I may kick it your way ;) -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
