[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830803140216k1a04ce4ej4779bf10ec6ef4f9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:16:46 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
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 Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> While composing this with the ns_cgroup may seem logical, it is not
> the right thing to do, because updates to /cg/cg1/devcg.deny are
> not reflected in /cg/cg1/cg2/devcg.allow.
Maybe you should follow up the tree to ensure that all parent groups
have access to the device too? Or alternatively, cache the results of
this lookup whenever permissions for a device change?
>
> A task may only be moved to another devcgroup if it is moving to
> a direct descendent of its current devcgroup.
What's the rationale for that?
>
> CAP_NS_OVERRIDE is defined as the capability needed to cross namespaces.
> A task needs both CAP_NS_OVERRIDE and CAP_SYS_ADMIN to create a new
> devcgroup, update a devcgroup's access, or move a task to a new
> devcgroup.
But this isn't necessarily crossing namespaces. It could be used for
device control in the same namespace (e.g. allowing a job to access a
raw disk for its data storage rather than going through the
filesystem).
Paul
--
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