[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Xine.LNX.4.64.0803141046340.1545@us.intercode.com.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:49:10 +1100 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ch.ncsc.mil>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroups: implement device whitelist lsm (v2)
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting James Morris (jmorris@...ei.org):
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >
> > > True, but while this change simplifies the code a bit, the semantics
> > > seem more muddled - devcg will be enforcing when CONFIG_CGROUP_DEV=y
> > > and:
> > >
> > > SECURITY=n or
> > > rootplug is enabled
> > > capabilities is enabled
> > > smack is enabled
> > > selinux+capabilities is enabled
> >
> > Well, this is how real systems are going to be deployed.
>
> Sorry, do you mean with capabilities?
Yes.
All Fedora, RHEL, CentOS etc. ship with SELinux+capabilities. I can't
imagine not enabling them on other kernels.
> > It becomes confusing, IMHO, if you have to change which secondary LSM you
> > stack with SELinux to enable a cgroup feature.
>
> So you're saying selinux without capabilities should still be able to
> use dev_cgroup? (Just making sure I understand right)
Nope, SELinux always stacks with capabilities, so havng the cgroup hooks
in capabilities makes sense (rather than having us change the secondary
stacking LSM just to enable a feature).
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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