From: Dominick Grift <dominick.grift@defensec.nl>
To: Chris PeBenito <chpebeni@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: SELinux mailing list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC systemd-sysext/confext image context mounts
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2026 18:01:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o6n6iskb.fsf@defensec.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <65a70099-a752-42d5-adfc-5973c21b9710@linux.microsoft.com> (Chris PeBenito's message of "Tue, 6 Jan 2026 11:01:13 -0500")
Chris PeBenito <chpebeni@linux.microsoft.com> writes:
> Systemd provides tools for composing directories like /usr and /opt
> (system extensions, sysext) or /etc (configuration extensions,
> confext). These tools create an overlayfs at the target location,
> with the root filesystem and extensions. While they support raw
> directories, files, and mutable filesystems, my current concern is
> with extending immutable distributions at runtime using additional
> immutable images.
>
> The challenge lies in ensuring proper labeling before deploying an
> image, which is problematic for third-party images lacking labels or
> using incompatible ones. I haven't made any patches yet, as I want to
> consult this group and the systemd developers first. My proposal is:
> for internally labeled filesystems (ext4, etc.), have the tools
> validate the image's root directory label. If validation fails, apply
Sounds fragile as these filesystems by definition have more then just a
root directory.
> a context= mount using the label from the contexts/systemd_contexts
> file in the policy. I'd probably also add options in sysext.conf(.d)
> and confext.conf(.d) to override this behavior, such as for specifying
> an alternate label for the context mount.
>
> What are your thoughts?
I am not opposed per se but feels inconsistent. Consider for
example verity authentication which will also most likely be used in
these types of scenarios: why would one be able to deal with verity but
not with selinux labels?
Also wondering where systemd is going to go with extensions will we get
per-user instances that work together with systemd-mountfsd like we
currently have with systemd-nspawn? If so how will that affect this design.
>
>
> --
> Chris PeBenito
>
--
gpg --auto-key-locate clear,nodefault,wkd --locate-external-keys dominick.grift@defensec.nl
Key fingerprint = FCD2 3660 5D6B 9D27 7FC6 E0FF DA7E 521F 10F6 4098
Dominick Grift
Mastodon: @kcinimod@defensec.nl
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-06 17:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-06 16:01 RFC systemd-sysext/confext image context mounts Chris PeBenito
2026-01-06 16:20 ` Stephen Smalley
2026-01-06 16:42 ` Chris PeBenito
2026-01-06 17:08 ` Stephen Smalley
2026-01-06 18:58 ` Chris PeBenito
2026-01-06 17:01 ` Dominick Grift [this message]
2026-01-06 18:55 ` Chris PeBenito
2026-01-06 19:37 ` Dominick Grift
2026-01-07 12:28 ` Dominick Grift
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87o6n6iskb.fsf@defensec.nl \
--to=dominick.grift@defensec.nl \
--cc=chpebeni@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox