From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47799 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751793Ab2HAKcv (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2012 06:32:51 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q71AWoRX028261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 06:32:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:32:48 +0200 From: Karel Zak To: Niels de Vos Cc: util-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] mount: overwrite options from /etc/fstab when given on the commandline Message-ID: <20120801103248.GA7670@x2.net.home> References: <1343812301-24896-1-git-send-email-ndevos@redhat.com> <20120801094833.GC1019@x2.net.home> <20120801100316.GD1019@x2.net.home> <5019017E.4050704@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <5019017E.4050704@redhat.com> Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:14:22PM +0200, Niels de Vos wrote: > On 08/01/2012 12:03 PM, Karel Zak wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:48:33AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: > >>> Some options are not allowed to be > >>> passed multiple times (like the SElinux context options) and mounting will fail > >>> if options are present in both /etc/fstab and on the commandline. > >> > >> This is stupid SELinux disadvantage and SELinux should be fixed. > > > > Note that mount(8) and libmount removes all selinux context options on > > remount for kernels< 2.6.39 because SELinux context remount was > > unsupported, so this SELinux disadvantage should be hidden for usual > > use case. > > > > Maybe we can also add another exception for SELinux to de-duplicate > > the SELinux context options in the options string. It's not perfect, > > but probably acceptable for SELinux -- I can do this for 2.22-rc2. > > That would be great. What is your opinion on getting the SElinux options > handled differently in the kernel instead or in addition? SELinux is no filesystem and we already have (must have) SELinux specific code in mount(8) (and many others utils;-). Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com