From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757409AbbAHTi0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:38:26 -0500 Received: from arcturus.aphlor.org ([188.246.204.175]:53230 "EHLO arcturus.aphlor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751973AbbAHTiZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:38:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:38:17 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: Paul Moore Cc: Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: noisy selinux messages on tmpfs mount. Message-ID: <20150108193817.GC4365@codemonkey.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Paul Moore , Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Linux Kernel References: <20150108190822.GB4365@codemonkey.org.uk> <3227891.DhTeT4XeAv@sifl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3227891.DhTeT4XeAv@sifl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam report generated by SpamAssassin on "arcturus.aphlor.org" Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Authenticated-User: davej@codemonkey.org.uk Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 02:34:57PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thursday, January 08, 2015 02:08:22 PM Dave Jones wrote: > > systemd has started mounting a tmpfs in /run/user/ every time a > > session begins. So after ssh'ing into a box a number of times, dmesg > > looks like this.. > > > > [...] SELinux: initialized (dev tmpfs, type tmpfs), uses transition SIDs > > [...] SELinux: initialized (dev tmpfs, type tmpfs), uses transition SIDs > > {snip} > > > What's a good solution to stopping this spew ? printk_once doesn't seem like > > a good fit, in case someone is doing different labelling behaviours between > > mounts. > > > > Could we only print it if the mount is being done with non-default behaviour > > perhaps? > > I'm very curious to hear Stephen's opinion on the issue, but I wonder how much > this would honestly impact us if we removed this message in the case where we > mount the filesystem with a known labeling behavior. It would help if I had cc'd Stephen's correct email address. Stephen, for context: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/8/468 I figured there would be pushback from removing it entirely, which is why I didn't send the obvious patch. Dave