From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-kvm] Add raw(af_packet) network backend to qemu Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:57:33 -0600 Message-ID: <4B61EC2D.10909@codemonkey.ws> 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> <20100128180426.GB3541@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 , "Daniel P. Berrange" To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f215.google.com ([209.85.220.215]:42826 "EHLO mail-fx0-f215.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751526Ab0A1T5v (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:57:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100128180426.GB3541@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/28/2010 12:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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. > It would mean that libvirt is insecure unless SELinux is enabled. That's a pretty fundamental flaw IMHO. At any rate, I think we both agree that we need to figure out a solution, so that's good :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori