[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2588582.z15pWOfGEt@x2>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:45:29 -0400
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>, linux-audit@...hat.com,
nhorman@...driver.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dhowells@...hat.com,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
simo@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
mpatel@...hat.com, Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 07/16] audit: add contid support for signalling the audit daemon
On Friday, March 13, 2020 12:42:15 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote:
> > I think more and more, that more complete isolation is being done,
> > taking advantage of each type of namespace as they become available, but
> > I know a nuber of them didn't find it important yet to use IPC, PID or
> > user namespaces which would be the only namespaces I can think of that
> > would provide that isolation.
> >
> > It isn't entirely clear to me which side you fall on this issue, Paul.
>
> That's mostly because I was hoping for some clarification in the
> discussion, especially the relevant certification requirements, but it
> looks like there is still plenty of room for interpretation there (as
> usual). I'd much rather us arrive at decisions based on requirements
> and not gut feelings, which is where I think we are at right now.
Certification rquirements are that we need the identity of anyone attempting
to modify the audit configuration including shutting it down.
-Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists