Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Ah, okay. I didn't realise selinux_dentry_init_security() wasn't supposed to be so different. David -- 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
