Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759061AbYCHGNX (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Mar 2008 01:13:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752180AbYCHGMj (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Mar 2008 01:12:39 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:57493 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752096AbYCHGM2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Mar 2008 01:12:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:04:10 -0800 From: Greg KH To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Pavel Emelyanov , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, menage@google.com, sukadev@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] Make use of permissions, returned by kobj_lookup Message-ID: <20080308060410.GC13434@kroah.com> References: <20080305171304.f686f6de.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47D10939.6020806@openvz.org> <20080307013553.7ed35f91.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47D11068.9010704@openvz.org> <20080307155921.GB28439@kroah.com> <47D16F9B.6050008@openvz.org> <20080307170104.GA24746@kroah.com> <20080307173542.GA2552@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20080307181431.GA4915@kroah.com> <20080307185052.GA4428@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080307185052.GA4428@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1190 Lines: 32 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/