Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJfpegtNhcWD0VWy6LPtoDtQBfPu4x5iFsB053UMCidj6oMsuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <26bce3be-49c2-cdd8-af03-1a78d0f268ae@tycho.nsa.gov> <CAJfpeguL9xOh9Eq8LOP=ddJ4YD6nbp2UY6e2AYDVoHeCLuVhZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6b125e8e-413f-f8e6-c7ae-50f7235c8960@tycho.nsa.gov> <CAJfpegv6y56k1-Tewu-Pu3x1W75LL6qYB6Hb6=n+2BJoNfEigA@mail.gmail.com>
 <c993dba4-5129-7f04-2724-a82a1f1cafa3@tycho.nsa.gov> <f84bbe0b-f4c1-50e0-8c84-a6589154b3ae@tycho.nsa.gov>
 <CAJfpegtBDTMbmKd6eDxRmtSJjGN6CnpGK_QPNSsxjkOoeu=1pQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4c20a261-5ce1-f0a2-8d40-c6032a023216@tycho.nsa.gov> <20181204151549.GA21509@redhat.com>
 <20181204152248.GB21509@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181204152248.GB21509@redhat.com>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:31:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtFVvq286HAorGLg6ywMsfs51KqaQwFkcuV7Dtu8TLaLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: overlayfs access checks on underlying layers
To:     Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc:     Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@android.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
        Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:22 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> 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?

Thanks,
Miklos