From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cr: checkpoint the active LSM and add RESTART_KEEP_LSM flag Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:36:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20090831133656.GC4837@us.ibm.com> References: <20090828210041.GA27878@us.ibm.com> <20090828210208.GA28048@us.ibm.com> <4A98B1D7.9050108@schaufler-ca.com> <20090829225923.GB12549@hallyn.com> <4A99C1B6.6080504@schaufler-ca.com> <20090830134809.GA14699@hallyn.com> <4A9ACBD4.4020804@schaufler-ca.com> <20090830202412.GA16222@hallyn.com> <4A9AF28D.2030803@schaufler-ca.com> <20090831132258.GB4837@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090831132258.GB4837@us.ibm.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Casey Schaufler Cc: Oren Laadan , Linux Containers , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, SELinux , "Eric W. Biederman" , Stephen Smalley , James Morris , David Howells , Alexey Dobriyan List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serue@us.ibm.com): > Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@schaufler-ca.com): > > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@schaufler-ca.com): > > > So do you think that adding a policy version check in the kernel > > > at restart would help this? > > For the moment I intend to add a patch on top of these adding two > security calls: > > security_may_checkpoint(ctx) which will authorize the > ability to checkpoint at all, and I meant: security_may_restore(ctx). -serge