[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> My very practical question: How do I run selinux in one container,
> and SMACK in another?
In AppArmor, we plan to 'containerize' (not sure what to call it) policy
so that you can have an AppArmor policy per container. This is not
currently the case, it is just the direction we want to go. We think it
would be very useful for virtual hosts to be able to have their own
AppArmor policy, independent of what other hosts are doing.

The major step towards this goal so far is that AppArmor rules are now
canonicalized to the name space.

However, I have never considered the idea of separate LSM modules per
container. The idea doesn't really make sense to me. It is kind of like
asking for private device drivers, or even a private kernel, per name
space. If that's what you want, use virtualization like KVM, Xen, or VMware.


Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-08 23:53    [W:0.147 / U:3.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site