From: dwalsh@redhat.com (Daniel J Walsh)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:32:25 -0400
Subject: [refpolicy] kernel_corenetwork.te.in.patch
In-Reply-To: <1275666210.809.56.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
References: <4C06BC99.5070505@redhat.com>	
	<1275659561.809.52.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>	
	<4C09135D.5070908@redhat.com>
	<1275666210.809.56.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
Message-ID: <4C0962D9.10300@redhat.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 06/04/2010 11:43 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 10:53 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> On 06/04/2010 09:52 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 16:18 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>>> http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dwalsh/SELinux/F14/kernel_corenetwork.te.in.patch
>>>>
>>>> tun_tap_device is an mls trusted object
>>>
>>> Why?  This seems wrong to me.
>
>> I think virtual machines at different levels need to talk to this device.
>
> But there are several of these devices.  Making it trusted means that
> theres no separation between the networks, which seems contrary to what
> a MLS system would want.  More likely, the MLS label needs to be changed
> as needed.
>
I think the kernel will take care of the isolation.

Eric Dan, Is tuntap device per qemu instance?