From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the vfs tree Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:51:30 +0000 Message-ID: <20181129235130.GI2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20181127115246.00967523@canb.auug.org.au> <20181127225013.133adc7d@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Moore Cc: omosnace@redhat.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:23:24PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > 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. > > The big thing is just making sure that we don't regress on the fix in > selinux/next if/when David's mount rework hits Linus' tree. FWIW, the whole thing is getting massaged/reordered/etc. and I would like some input from you guys at some point - assuming that I recover the ability to talk about LSM without obscenities... Question: what *should* happen if we try to cross into a submount and find that the thing on the other side is already mounted elsewhere, with incompatible LSM options? Ditto for referrals, with an extra twist - what if we are given 3 alternatives, the first two already mounted elsewhere with incompatible options, the third one not mounted anywhere yet? Incidentally, should smack have ->sb_clone_mnt_opts()?