On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 7:59 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 4:00 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 9:21 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 20:59:49 +0100 Ondrej Mosnacek wrote: > > > > As agreed with Xin Long, I'm posting this fix up instead of him. I am > > > > now fairly convinced that this is the right way to deal with the > > > > immediate problem of client peeloff socket labeling. I'll work on > > > > addressing the side problem regarding selinux_socket_post_create() > > > > being called on the peeloff sockets separately. > > > > > > IIUC Paul would like to see this part to come up in the same series. > > > > Just to reaffirm the IIUC part - yes, your understanding is correct. > > The more I'm reading these threads, the more I'm getting confused... > Do you insist on resending the whole original series with > modifications? Or actual revert patches + the new patches? Or is it > enough to revert/resend only the patches that need changes? Do you > also insist on the selinux_socket_post_create() thing to be fixed in > the same series? Note that the original patches are still in the > net.git tree and it doesn't seem like Dave will want to rebase them > away, so it seems explicit reverting is the only way to "respin" the > series... DaveM is stubbornly rejecting the revert requests so for now I would continue to base any patches on top of the netdev tree. If that changes we can reconcile any changes as necessary, that should not be a major issue. As far as what I would like to see from the patches, ignoring the commit description vs cover letter discussion, I would like to see patches that fix all of the known LSM/SELinux/SCTP problems as have been discussed over the past couple of weeks. Even beyond this particular issue I generally disapprove of partial fixes to known problems; I would rather see us sort out all of the issues in a single patchset so that we can review everything in a sane manner. In this particular case things are a bit more complicated because of the current state of the patches in the netdev tree, but as mentioned above just treat the netdev tree as broken and base your patches on that with all of the necessary "Fixes:" metadata and the like. > Regardless of the answers, this thing has rabbithole'd too much and > I'm already past my free cycles to dedicate to this, so I think it > will take me (and Xin) some time to prepare the corrected and > re-documented patches. Moreover, I think I realized how to to deal > with the peer_secid-vs.-multiple-assocs-on-one-socket problem that Xin > mentions in patch 4/4, fixing which can't really be split out into a > separate patch and will need some test coverage, so I don't think I > can rush this up at this point... It's not clear to me from your comments above if this is something you are currently working on, planning to work on soon, or giving up on in the near term. Are we able to rely on you for a patchset to fix this or are you unable to see this through at this time? > In the short term, I'd suggest > either reverting patches 3/4 and 4/4 (which are the only ones that > would need re-doing; the first two are good changes on their own) or > leaving everything as is (it's not functionally worse than what we had > before...) and waiting for the proper fixes. DaveM has thus far failed to honor the revert request so it doesn't appear that reverting 3/4 and 4/4 is an option. In the near term that leaves us with the other two options: leave it as-is or fix it properly. I am firmly in the fix it properly camp, regardless of the revert state, so that is the direction I would like to see things go. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
