On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 04:31:09PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:22 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Having said that, this still create little anomaly when mknod to client > > is not allowed on context label. So a device file, which is on lower > > and client can not open it for read/write on host, it can now be opened > > for read/write because mounter will allow access. So why it is different > > that regular copy up. Well, in regular copy up, we created a copy of > > the original object and allowed writing to that object (cp --preserve=all) > > model. But in case of device file, writes will go to same original > > object. (And not a separate copy). > > That's true. > > In that sense copy up of special file should result in upper having > the same label as of lower, right? I guess that might be reasonable (if this behavior is a concern). So even after copy up, client will not be able to read/write a device if it was not allowed on lower. Stephen, what do you think about retaining label of lower for device files during copy up. What about socket/fifo. Thanks Vivek
