![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 12:50:52PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Greg KH (greg@kroah.com):> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 11:35:42AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > Do you really want to run other LSMs within a containerd kernel? Is > > > > that a requirement? It would seem to run counter to the main goal of > > > > containers to me.> > > > > > Until user namespaces are complete, selinux seems the only good solution > > > to offer isolation.> > > > Great, use that instead :)> > That can't work as is since you can't specify major:minor in policy. Your LSM can not, or the LSM interface does not allow this to happen? > So all we could do again is simply refuse all mknod, which we can > already do with per-process capability bounding sets. I thought we passed that info down to the LSM module, can't you do your selection at that point in time? And then, just mediate open() like always, right? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-08 07:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||