[PATCH v4 1/3] [security] Add new hook to compare new mount to an existing mount

[Olga Kornievskaia]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:55 PM Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:45 AM Anna Schumaker
> <anna.schumaker at netapp.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:34 PM Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:53 PM Casey Schaufler <casey at schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> > > > On 3/2/2021 10:20 AM, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> > > > > Hi Casey,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:40 PM Olga Kornievskaia
> > > > > <olga.kornievskaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga at netapp.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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 <kolga at netapp.com>
> > > > > 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 <Anna.Schumaker at Netapp.com>
> >
> > 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