Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753666AbYCRLed (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:34:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753472AbYCRLeT (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:34:19 -0400 Received: from fxip-0047f.externet.hu ([88.209.222.127]:59718 "EHLO pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753350AbYCRLeR (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:34:17 -0400 To: jmorris@namei.org CC: miklos@szeredi.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org, serue@us.ibm.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, eparis@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org In-reply-to: (message from James Morris on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:51:10 +1100 (EST)) Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] mount ownership and unprivileged mount syscall (v9) References: <20080317200053.447640802@szeredi.hu> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:33:02 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 773 Lines: 19 > Something to consider down the track would be how to possibly allow this > with SELinux, which only knows about normal mounts. Right. > We might need a user_mount hook which is called once the core kernel code > determines that it is a a valid unprivileged mount (although the sb_mount > hook will already have been called, IIUC). Does the order matter between core code's and the security module's permission checks? If it does, the cleanest would be to just move the core checks before the sb_mount hook, no? Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/