From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD99C433E6 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 22:35:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B695D64F6B for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 22:35:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235591AbhCLWfS (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:35:18 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51304 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235585AbhCLWfE (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:35:04 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x629.google.com (mail-ej1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE012C061574; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 14:35:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x629.google.com with SMTP id mm21so56228445ejb.12; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 14:35:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XWpIBx1l9eSZdSwA4taVa5NCupfCLbCXfPtWL5IZLkU=; b=H/uOGulMLF9lC+6AmvRl8HfVRAJIZoI+nJpcEA6Qxcex/nog4hUkkIqY8jd/AuQH25 RMSsG6xzDdSw/maF9GCVEc12UthelIpUj3WY0xI5X8u5JjizWidTmzWPQsSMXEJX8dZi gmuX7dk1Ks32wmkHLPBoPLIAk9IBuYZc4iNqmn7P/hiYu0+7v/ilkEBL9BNjcJaLB3eR VJ9UwR1gJ33ii05u8GaHuanai3WCUBkdz+d2IyZEjCu2tUEkSpti/cKkcgcKB5v05z2A oO+aeLSPK5FRyWVtj0v49RXOKn/buSv9+JpUN0HnnUHjv+P2hujYz31qhkggkUVj/6us E5rQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XWpIBx1l9eSZdSwA4taVa5NCupfCLbCXfPtWL5IZLkU=; b=mI1cwLaU6LLsVI1H3slvJP+peSi1QbMij0PIAtC2oQgT3euANE/UFzSHSXf6Fl59Vi MY5m3PDgNe2bsVf5PWhVoLGYitflLcpMJ8AZ0MJaGnzPDfSgeIYTPiZippHRD7qukDy3 0PATIutAxufh5AjZ/zqUSxycax108f5obkaV7bUI3eYCGg6rRvmn5wi3FJLdpMSPoJqT Vor9pk5012u/tvqR2e7mYoMS3cHU27Vj9C21yUZvQ9BjMHkqGSIfFFZzMp2u4cUT9OyC o//ApES4TSNW4pxyS8WuCwMQag9DJnNR3YOOQ49JrvjIDHydBKtBhKZnEdRCiBQ+ugyK /YmA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Hja/MW5XKCJ72IG/xWpBlAEyDsxQZ6eTf7vYp4Wiysb2uHcVs ySdbQ2q2Wh3jgX61SxWQYzYLRlDZXNiKz3AdR73zb23D X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy17V0HTw4HcJfBA2lUUw2Z9yxw0+4VblM4Gn8m2qFT3INS8U0nmvAjhGpuxnJ14jdpOwwvOIfyq2dv2awnaJ4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:18aa:: with SMTP id c10mr10993588ejf.248.1615588502425; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 14:35:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210227033755.24460-1-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Olga Kornievskaia Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:34:51 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] [security] Add new hook to compare new mount to an existing mount To: Paul Moore Cc: Anna Schumaker , Casey Schaufler , Trond Myklebust , Linux NFS Mailing List , Linux Security Module list , SElinux list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:55 PM Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:45 AM Anna Schumaker > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:34 PM Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:53 PM Casey Schaufler wrote: > > > > On 3/2/2021 10:20 AM, Anna Schumaker wrote: > > > > > Hi Casey, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:40 PM Olga Kornievskaia > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> From: Olga Kornievskaia > > > > >> > > > > >> Add a new hook that takes an existing super block and a new mount > > > > >> with new options and determines if new options confict with an > > > > >> existing mount or not. > > > > >> > > > > >> A filesystem can use this new hook to determine if it can share > > > > >> the an existing superblock with a new superblock for the new mount. > > > > >> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia > > > > > Do you have any other thoughts on this patch? I'm also wondering how > > > > > you want to handle sending it upstream. > > > > > > > > James Morris is the maintainer for the security sub-system, > > > > so you'll want to send this through him. He will want you to > > > > have an ACK from Paul Moore, who is the SELinux maintainer. > > > > > > In the past I've pulled patches such as this (new LSM hook, with only > > > a SELinux implementation of the new hook) in via the selinux/next tree > > > after the other LSMs have ACK'd the new hook. This helps limit merge > > > problems with other SELinux changes and allows us (the SELinux folks) > > > to include it in the ongoing testing that we do during the -rcX > > > releases. > > > > > > So Anna, if you or anyone else on the NFS side of the house want to > > > add your ACKs/REVIEWs/etc. please do so as I don't like merging > > > patches that cross subsystem boundaries without having all the > > > associated ACKs. Casey, James, and other LSM folks please do the > > > same. > > > > Sure: > > Acked-by: Anna Schumaker > > > > Are you also going to take patch 3/3 that uses the new hook, or should > > that go through the NFS tree? Patch 2/3 is a cleanup that can go > > through the NFS tree. > > Generally when patches are posted as patchsets I would apply the whole > patchset assuming they patches were all good, however it does seem > like patch 2/3 is not strictly related to the other two? That said, > as long as your ACK applies to all three patches in the patchset I > have no problem applying all of them to the selinux/next tree once > some of the other LSM maintainers provide their ACKs (while there may > only a SELinux implementation of the hook at the moment, we need to > make sure the other LSMs are okay with the basic hook concept). > > Also, did the v4 posting only include patch 1/3? I see v3 postings > for the other two patches, but the only v4 patch I see is 1/3 ... ? I didn't not repost patches that didn't change. > > -- > paul moore > www.paul-moore.com