On 06/12/2015 11:30 AM, David Howells wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Also, would be good to create a common helper for use here, by >>> selinux_dentry_init_security(), selinux_inode_init_security(), and >>> may_create(). Already some seeming potential for inconsistencies there. >> >> selinux_dentry_init_security() and selinux_inode_init_security() do >> something different depending on SECURITY_FS_USE_MNTPOINT. Is the dentry >> variant wrong? Shouldn't it be using the mountpoint label if that flag _is_ >> set? > > Any answer to that? It looks like commit 415103f9932d45f7927f4b17e3a9a13834cdb9a1 changed selinux_inode_init_security()'s handling of SECURITY_FS_USE_MNTPOINT, and this change was never propagated to selinux_dentry_init_security(). However, that commit also did not update security/selinux/hooks.c:may_create()'s logic for computing the new file label when checking CREATE permission, and therefore introduced a potential inconsistency between the label used for the permission check and the label assigned to the inode. That's why I suggested that we need a common helper for all three to ensure consistency there. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
