lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] cgroups: implement device whitelist lsm (v2)
    Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@openvz.org):
    > Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
    > > Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org):
    > >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org):
    > >>>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> True, but while this change simplifies the code a bit, the semantics
    > >>>>> seem more muddled - devcg will be enforcing when CONFIG_CGROUP_DEV=y
    > >>>>> and:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> SECURITY=n or
    > >>>>> rootplug is enabled
    > >>>>> capabilities is enabled
    > >>>>> smack is enabled
    > >>>>> selinux+capabilities is enabled
    > >>>> Well, this is how real systems are going to be deployed.
    > >>> Sorry, do you mean with capabilities?
    > >> Yes.
    > >>
    > >> All Fedora, RHEL, CentOS etc. ship with SELinux+capabilities. I can't
    > >> imagine not enabling them on other kernels.
    > >>
    > >>>> It becomes confusing, IMHO, if you have to change which secondary LSM you
    > >>>> stack with SELinux to enable a cgroup feature.
    > >>> So you're saying selinux without capabilities should still be able to
    > >>> use dev_cgroup? (Just making sure I understand right)
    > >> Nope, SELinux always stacks with capabilities, so havng the cgroup hooks
    > >> in capabilities makes sense (rather than having us change the secondary
    > >> stacking LSM just to enable a feature).
    > >
    > > Oh, ok.
    > >
    > > Will let the patch stand until Pavel and Greg comment then.
    >
    > Well, I saw your previous patch, that was implemented as just another
    > LSM module and I liked it except for the LSM dependency.

    James and Stephen agree with your LSM qualms. I suppose we could add
    cgroups next to the lsm hooks. I suspect Paul Menage would complain
    about that (Paul?), and I do think it's silly as they are security
    questions, not group tracking questions, but if it's what people want
    I can send out a new patch next week.

    > Since this version can happily work w/o LSM, I like it too :)

    In an earlier version I asked whether you had any experience with usual
    # rules per container. Do you have an idea? Right now the whitelist is
    a straight list we search through linearly. If # rules is generally
    tiny then I'm inclined to keep it that way...

    thanks,
    -serge


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-14 15:01    [W:0.026 / U:32.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site