On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 02:21:45PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:48 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosn...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > When SELinux security options are passed to btrfs via fsconfig(2) rather
> > than via mount(2), the operation aborts with an error. What happens is
> > roughly this sequence:
> >
> > 1. vfs_parse_fs_param() eats away the LSM options and parses them into
> >    fc->security.
> > 2. legacy_get_tree() finds nothing in ctx->legacy_data, passes this
> >    nothing to btrfs.
> > [here btrfs calls another layer of vfs_kern_mount(), but let's ignore
> >  that for simplicity]

Let's not.  This is where the root of the problem actually lies.  Take a look
at that sucker:

        struct fs_context *fc;
        struct vfsmount *mnt;
        int ret = 0;

        if (!type)
                return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);

        fc = fs_context_for_mount(type, flags);
        if (IS_ERR(fc))
                return ERR_CAST(fc);

        if (name)
                ret = vfs_parse_fs_string(fc, "source",
                                          name, strlen(name));
        if (!ret)
                ret = parse_monolithic_mount_data(fc, data);  
        if (!ret)
                mnt = fc_mount(fc);
                mnt = ERR_PTR(ret);

        return mnt;

That's where the problem comes - you've lost the original context's ->security.
Note that there's such thing as security_fs_context_dup(), so you can bloody
well either
        * provide a variant of vfs_kern_mount() that would take 'base' fc to
pick security options from or
        * do all options parsing on btrfs fc and then do fs_context_for_mount +
security_fs_context_dup + copy (parsed) options to whatever private data you
use for btrfs_root context + fc_mount + put_fs_context yourself. 

My preference would be the latter, but I have *not* looked at btrfs mount 
handling in any details.

> VFS folks, can we get a verdict/feedback on this patch?  The v1 draft
> of this patch was posted almost four months ago with no serious
> comments/feedback.  It's a bit ugly, but it does appear to work and at
> the very least SELinux needs this to handle btrfs properly, other LSMs
> may need this too.

It's more than a bit ugly; it perpetuates the use of FS_BINARY_MOUNTDATA,
and the semantics it gets is quite counterintuitive at that.

Reply via email to