From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-kvm] Add raw(af_packet) network backend to qemu Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:04:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20100128180426.GB3541@redhat.com> References: <4B5F54E8.3080507@codemonkey.ws> <20100127180338.GB13730@redhat.com> <4B6099E0.40101@codemonkey.ws> <201001280912.04809.arnd@arndb.de> <20100128135644.GE3776@redhat.com> <4B619BA1.9010404@codemonkey.ws> <20100128145226.GA10497@redhat.com> <4B61A7C9.7040808@codemonkey.ws> <20100128163720.GB3288@redhat.com> <4B61D058.20606@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Sridhar Samudrala , avi@redhat.com, markmc@redhat.com, ogerlitz@voltaire.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wright To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35368 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752677Ab0A1SHm (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:07:42 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B61D058.20606@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:58:48AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 01/28/2010 10:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> So actually, this is an interesting argument in favor of >> turning disablenetwork from per-process as it is now >> to per-file. >> > > Yup. I think we really need a file-based restriction mechanism and so > far, neither disablenetwork or network namespace seems to do that. > > I think you might be able to mitigate this with SELinux since I'm fairly > certain it can prevent SCM_RIGHTS but SELinux is not something that can > be enforced within a set of applications so we'd be relying on SELinux > being enabled (honestly, unlikely) and the policy being correctly > configured (unlikely in the general case at least). > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori I am not convinced SELinux being disabled is a problem we necessarily need to deal with, and qemu does not verify e.g. that it is not run as root either. A more serious problem IMO is that SCM_RIGHTS might be needed for some other functionality. >> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Anthony Liguori >>> >>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Anthony Liguori >>>>> >>>>>