Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757738AbYCMXtg (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:49:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752226AbYCMXt1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:49:27 -0400 Received: from namei.org ([69.55.235.186]:54671 "EHLO us.intercode.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751631AbYCMXt1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:49:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:49:10 +1100 (EST) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@us.intercode.com.au To: "Serge E. Hallyn" cc: lkml , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , Stephen Smalley , Casey Schaufler , Pavel Emelianov Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroups: implement device whitelist lsm (v2) In-Reply-To: <20080313224616.GA9139@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20080313032749.GA13258@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20080313131818.GA9771@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20080313143803.GA11265@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20080313224616.GA9139@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1422 Lines: 46 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). -- James Morris -- 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/