Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <c648aa7c-a49c-a7e2-6a05-d1dfe44b8fdb@schaufler-ca.com>
References: <c648aa7c-a49c-a7e2-6a05-d1dfe44b8fdb@schaufler-ca.com> <166133579016.3678898.6283195019480567275.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20220826082439.wdestxwkeccsyqtp@wittgenstein>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>,
        Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, dwysocha@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] vfs, security: Fix automount superblock LSM init problem, preventing NFS sb sharing
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1903708.1661849345.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 09:49:05 +0100
Message-ID: <1903709.1661849345@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:

> The authors of this version of the mount code failed to look
> especially closely at how Smack maintains label names. Once a
> label name is used in the kernel it is kept on a list forever.
> All the copies of smk_known here and in the rest of the mount
> infrastructure are unnecessary and wasteful. The entire set of
> Smack hooks that deal with mounting need to be reworked to remove
> that waste. It's on my list of Smack cleanups, but I'd be happy
> if someone else wanted a go at it.

I don't have time to overhaul Smack right now.  Should I drop the Smack part
of the patch?

David