On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 12:50:52PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
quoted text
> 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?

quoted text
> 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
--
unsubscribe notice
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/