Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751437AbWC3CDx (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:03:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751438AbWC3CDx (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:03:53 -0500 Received: from 216-99-217-87.dsl.aracnet.com ([216.99.217.87]:36226 "EHLO sorel.sous-sol.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751437AbWC3CDw (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:03:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:04:46 -0800 From: Chris Wright To: David Lang Cc: Chris Wright , "Eric W. Biederman" , Sam Vilain , Nick Piggin , Herbert Poetzl , Bill Davidsen , Linux Kernel ML , "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps Message-ID: <20060330020445.GT15997@sorel.sous-sol.org> References: <20060328142639.GE14576@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <44294BE4.2030409@yahoo.com.au> <442A26E9.20608@vilain.net> <20060329182027.GB14724@sorel.sous-sol.org> <442B0BFE.9080709@vilain.net> <20060329225241.GO15997@sorel.sous-sol.org> <20060330013618.GS15997@sorel.sous-sol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1459 Lines: 33 * David Lang (dlang@digitalinsight.com) wrote: > what if the people administering the container are different from the > people administering the host? Yes, I alluded to that. > in that case the people working in the container want to be able to > implement and change their own policy, and the people working on the host > don't want to have to implement changes to their main policy config (wtih > all the auditing that would be involved with it) every time a container > wants to change it's internal policy. *nod* > I can definantly see where a container aware policy on the master would be > useful, but I can also see where the ability to nest seperate policies > would be useful. This is all fine. The question is whether this is a policy management issue or a kernel infrastructure issue. So far, it's not clear that this really necessitates kernel infrastructure changes to support container aware policies to be loaded by physical host admin/owner or the virtual host admin. The place where it breaks down is if each virtual host wants not only to control its own policy, but also its security model. Then we are left with stacking modules or heavier isolation (as in Xen). thanks, -chris - 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/