On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 9:12 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 08:46:43AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > The vfs has long had a fallback to obtain the security.* xattrs from the > > LSM when the filesystem does not implement its own listxattr, but > > shmem/tmpfs and kernfs later gained their own xattr handlers to support > > other xattrs. Unfortunately, as a side effect, tmpfs and kernfs-based > > filesystems like sysfs no longer return the synthetic security.* xattr > > names via listxattr unless they are explicitly set by userspace or > > initially set upon inode creation after policy load. coreutils has > > recently switched from unconditionally invoking getxattr for security.* > > for ls -Z via libselinux to only doing so if listxattr returns the xattr > > name, breaking ls -Z of such inodes. > > > > Before: > > $ getfattr -m.* /run/initramfs > > <no output> > > $ getfattr -m.* /sys/kernel/fscaps > > <no output> > > > > After: > > $ getfattr -m.* /run/initramfs > > security.selinux > > $ getfattr -m.* /sys/kernel/fscaps > > security.selinux > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/selinux/CAFqZXNtF8wDyQajPCdGn=iOawX4y77ph0EcfcqcUUj+T87FKyA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/selinux/20250423175728.3185-2-stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> > > As this "changed" in the past, shouldn't it have a "Fixes:" tag? Yes, I'll add that on v2. Also appears that it doesn't quite correctly handle the case where listxattr() is called with size == 0 to probe for the required size.
