[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPweEDwK06gCjCrzQghd8xYLgH=RtHAO6sN=s+APUeJkO+Voow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:27:40 +0000
From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@...l.net>
To: David Lang <david@...g.hm>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:08 AM, David Lang <david@...g.hm> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Luke Leighton wrote:
>> whilst the majority of people view management to be "hierarchical"
>> (so there is a top dog or God process and everything trickles down
>> from that), this is viewed as such an anathema in the security
>> industry that someone came up with a formal specification for the
>> real-world way in which permissions are managed,
sorry i should have said "managed in the security esp. defense industry"
>> and it's called the FLASK model.
>
>
> On this topic it's also worth reading Neil Brown's series of articles on
> this over at http://lwn.net/Articles/604609/
oo good background, thank you david. happily reading now :)
> and why he concludes that having a single hierarchy for all resource types.
i think.... having a single hierarchy is fine *if* and only if it is
possible to overlay something similar to SE/Linux policy files -
enforced by the kernel *not* by userspace (sorry serge!) - such that
through those policy files any type of hierarchy be it single or multi
layer, recursive or in fact absolutely anything, may be emulated and
properly enforced.
l.
--
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