On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:52 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:50 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Ondrej, > > > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 09:53:32 +0100 Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hm... seems that there was some massive overhaul in the VFS code right > > > at the wrong moment... There are new hooks for mounting now and the > > > > The mount changes have been in linux-next since before the last > > release ... > > > > > code that our commit changes is now here: > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git/tree/security/selinux/hooks.c?h=for-next#n3131 > > > > > > It seems that the logic is still the same, just now our patch (or the > > > VFS one) needs to be updated to change the above line as such > > > (untested pseudo-patch): > > > > > > - if (fc->purpose == FS_CONTEXT_FOR_KERNEL_MOUNT) > > > + if (fc->purpose == (FS_CONTEXT_FOR_KERNEL_MOUNT|FS_CONTEXT_FOR_SUBMOUNT)) > > > > OK, so from tomorrow I will use that merge resolution. Someone needs > > to remember to tell Linus about this when the latter of the vfs and > > selinux trees reach him. > > I will, or at least I'll do my best to remember; since we only have a > few more week until the merge window I like my odds. FWIW, I > typically do a test merge on top of Linus' tree before sending the > SELinux PR just to verify that everything is relatively clean and > there are no surprises. > > Ondrej, please work with David Howells to ensure that submounts are > handled correctly in his mount rework. OK, I will verify that the SELinux submount fix rebased on top of vfs/work.mount in the way I suggested above passes the same testing (seliinux-testsuite + NFS crossmnt reproducer). I am now building two kernels (vfs/work.mount with and without the fix) to test. Let me know if there is anything more to do. Thanks, -- Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com> Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies Red Hat, Inc.
