[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080308060410.GC13434@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:04:10 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com, sukadev@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] Make use of permissions, returned by kobj_lookup
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 12:50:52PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Greg KH (greg@...ah.com):
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 11:35:42AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Do you really want to run other LSMs within a containerd kernel? Is
> > > > that a requirement? It would seem to run counter to the main goal of
> > > > containers to me.
> > >
> > > Until user namespaces are complete, selinux seems the only good solution
> > > to offer isolation.
> >
> > Great, use that instead :)
>
> That can't work as is since you can't specify major:minor in policy.
Your LSM can not, or the LSM interface does not allow this to happen?
> So all we could do again is simply refuse all mknod, which we can
> already do with per-process capability bounding sets.
I thought we passed that info down to the LSM module, can't you do your
selection at that point in time?
And then, just mediate open() like always, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists