Eric W. Biederman wrote:In AppArmor, we plan to 'containerize' (not sure what to call it) policy so that you can have an AppArmor policy per container. This is not currently the case, it is just the direction we want to go. We think it would be very useful for virtual hosts to be able to have their own AppArmor policy, independent of what other hosts are doing. The major step towards this goal so far is that AppArmor rules are now canonicalized to the name space. However, I have never considered the idea of separate LSM modules per container. The idea doesn't really make sense to me. It is kind of like asking for private device drivers, or even a private kernel, per name space. If that's what you want, use virtualization like KVM, Xen, or VMware. Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/ Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work -
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commit a2bd7274b47124d2fc4d... |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
