Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN-5tyGuV-gs0KzVbKSj42ZMx553zy9wOfVb1SoHoE-WCoN1_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210227033755.24460-1-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> <CAFX2Jfk--KwkAss1gqTPnQt-bKvUUapNdHbuicu=m+jOtjrMyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f8f5323c-cdfd-92e8-b359-43caaf9d7490@schaufler-ca.com> <CAHC9VhR=+uwN8U17JhYWKcXSc9=ExCrG4O9-y+DPJg6xZ=WoYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhR=+uwN8U17JhYWKcXSc9=ExCrG4O9-y+DPJg6xZ=WoYA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:45:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFX2JfnT49o-CkaAE3=c0KW9SDS1U+scP0RD++nmWwyKoBDWkA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] [security] Add new hook to compare new mount to an
 existing mount
To:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Security Module list 
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        SElinux list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:34 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:53 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@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@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@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@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@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.

Anna

>
> --
> paul moore
> www.paul-moore.com