linux-kernel - Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 24 May 2007 19:40:39 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, jjohansen@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
	Tony Jones <tonyj@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:10:00PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:

> Read it like this: we don't have a good idea how to support multiple 
> namespaces so far. Currently, we interpret all pathnames relative to the 
> namespace a process is in. Confined processes don't have the privilege to 
> create or manipulate namespaces, which makes this safe. We may find a better 
> future solution.

You also don't have a solution for multiple chroot jails, since they
often have the same fs mounted in many places on given box *and* since
the pathnames from the confined processes' POVs have fsck-all to do
with each other.

It's really not kinder than multiple namespaces as far as your approach
is concerned.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/