On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 09:27 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:11:10 -0500 > Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is going to use the same superblock but the context= needs to the > > same. There is no was to reconcile the 2, so we just reject the second > > mount. > > > > We could just not share superblocks in that case. Maybe add a new > condition to nfs_compare_mount_options()? When that returns 0 now, I > believe we spin off a new superblock. I'll add it to my list of things to look at for .26. nfs_compare_mount_options doesn't have all the data the LSM would need but nfs_compare_super probably does. The selinux code is not going to change in this regard since most FS don't have such a nice 'just use a new one' option and the LSM should make sure it isn't doing things under the covers the user wasn't expecting. Using this feature is not going to clean up the necessity for that little if statement you were looking at but I can probably make NFS and multiple lsm options play nicer together in a future patch. -Eric [pulled from NFS list to just the security people] Does this even make sense? Should we allow: mount -o context=context1 server:/export /mnt/mnt1 mount -o context=context2 server:/export /mnt/mnt2 Same data different label? How about mount -o context=context1 server:/export/subdir1 /mnt/mnt1 mount -o context=context2 server:/export/subdir2 /mnt/mnt2 Here we have the same SB but different data and different labels. I think the user can easily get this by just setting of them to have a timeout of 119 seconds and the second to 120, so maybe we should just go ahead and explicitly allow it? I don't know, how do people feel about having NFS spin off a new SB if security mount options don't match? -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
