On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 9:38 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 5:16 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:46 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 3:28 AM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:54 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > > > I get that, but IMO this is enough of an odd "use case" that I > > > wouldn't worry too much ... > > > > I understand, but seeing as I'm the only one that defends these things > > with Linus and others lets do this: > > It's not all black and white: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Pine.LNX.4.64.0512291322560.3298@xxxxxxxxxxx/ I made my statement above not to ask your opinion, but rather to make a point. -- paul-moore.com
