linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] cgroups: implement device whitelist lsm (v2)

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]

Message-ID: <6599ad830803151757n1901db95tad78d11761e2cb92@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:57:36 +0800
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 Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
>  > Why aren't the
>  > existing cgroup security semantics sufficient?
>
>  Because the point of this is to provide some restrictions to otherwise
>  privileged users, and cgroups only provides dac-based permissions.
>
>  But that doesn't mean that I'm not doing too much.  I could just add a
>  CAP_SYS_ADMIN or CAP_CONT_OVERRIDE+CAP_SYS_ADMIN check, and not restrict
>  which cgroups a task can move to.  Does that sound good?

Sounds reasonable.

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/