[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1495551292.2742620.985957224.3FCF254A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 10:54:52 -0400
From: Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, trondmy@...marydata.com,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Make containers kernel objects
On Tue, May 23, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>
> Maybe it depends on the cases, a general approach can be too difficult
> to handle especially from the security point. Maybe it is better to
> identify what operations need what context, and a userspace
> service/proxy can act using kthreadd with the right context... at
> least the shift to this model has been done for years now in the
> mobile industry.
Why not drop the upcall model in favor of having userspace
monitor events via a (more efficient) protocol and react to them on its own?
It's just generally more flexible and avoids all of those issues like
replicating the seccomp configuration, etc.
Something like inotify/signalfd could be a precedent around having a read()/poll()able
fd. /proc/keys-requests ?
Then if you create a new user namespace, and open /proc/keys-requests, the
kernel will always write to that instead of calling /sbin/request-key.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists