On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:46 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 3:28 AM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:54 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I wonder if we could make this all much simpler by *always* doing the > > > label parsing in selinux_add_opt() and just returning an error when > > > !selinux_initialized(&selinux_state). Before the new mount API, mount > > > options were always passed directly to the mount(2) syscall, so it > > > wasn't possible to pass any SELinux mount options before the SELinux > > > policy was loaded. I don't see why we need to jump through hoops here > > > just to support this pseudo-feature of stashing an unparsed label into > > > an fs_context before policy is loaded... Userspace should never need > > > to do that. > > > > I could agree with that, although part of my mind is a little nervous > > about the "userspace should *never* ..." because that always seems to > > bite us. Although I'm struggling to think of a case where userspace > > would need to set explicit SELinux mount options without having a > > policy loaded. > > I get that, but IMO this is enough of an odd "use case" that I > wouldn't worry too much ... I understand, but seeing as I'm the only one that defends these things with Linus and others lets do this: 1. Fix what we have now using Scott's patches once he incorporates the feedback. 2. Merge another patch (separate patch(set) please!) which does the parsing in selinux_add_opt(). ... this was if we have to revert #2 we still have the fixes in #1. -- paul-moore.com
