[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:0.019 / U:47.304 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site