From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
LKLM <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
SE Linux <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/9] LSM: Multiple concurrent LSMs
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:35:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d2xb3440.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50F05656.5060301@schaufler-ca.com> (Casey Schaufler's message of "Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:13:42 -0800")
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> writes:
>> When a distro is run in a container it is desirable to be able to run
>> the distro's security policy in that container. Ideally this will get
>> addressed by being able to do some level of per user namespace stacking.
>> Say selinux outside and apparmor inside a container.
>>
>> I think this would take a little more work than what Casey has currently
>> devised but I am hopeful an additional layer of stacking can be added
>> after Casey has merged the basic layer of stacking.
>
> Would that be per-container LSM lists? I hadn't thought about
> doing that, and don't know how you might implement it, but I
> suppose it could work.
Essentially per-container LSM lists. The semantics would be that
first you perform the global LSM list checks, and then you perform
the container LSM list checks (with additional layers if containers are
nested). For LSM modules that depend on security labels I think there
would be a conflict that would prevent nesting.
This is already implemented for capabilities. Something is already
happening with apparmor.
In practice it may just be a matter of getting the LSMs to be aware of
the containers rather than having per container LSM lists. Especially
as all of the hooks are called every time for every LSM.
The important part is that the effect be nested policy. Having nested calls
is likely to be unnecessary and inefficient if there is much nesting of
containers going on.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-11 19:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-08 1:54 [PATCH v12 0/9] LSM: Multiple concurrent LSMs Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 2:09 ` [PATCH v12 1/9] " Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 2:09 ` [PATCH v12 2/9] " Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 2:09 ` [PATCH v12 3/9] " Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 2:09 ` [PATCH v12 4/9] " Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 2:09 ` [PATCH v12 5/9] " Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 2:09 ` [PATCH v12 6/9] " Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 2:09 ` [PATCH v12 7/9] " Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 2:09 ` [PATCH v12 8/9] " Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 2:09 ` [PATCH v12 9/9] " Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 3:01 ` [PATCH v12 0/9] " Stephen Rothwell
2013-01-08 3:59 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-01-08 4:11 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 6:34 ` Vasily Kulikov
2013-01-08 4:02 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 6:38 ` Vasily Kulikov
2013-01-08 9:12 ` James Morris
2013-01-08 17:14 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 20:19 ` Kees Cook
2013-01-09 13:42 ` James Morris
2013-01-09 17:07 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 20:40 ` John Johansen
2013-01-09 13:28 ` James Morris
2013-01-10 10:25 ` John Johansen
2013-01-10 13:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
2013-01-11 0:46 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-01-11 0:57 ` John Johansen
2013-01-11 1:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-01-11 1:15 ` John Johansen
2013-01-11 18:13 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-01-11 19:35 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2013-01-08 17:47 ` Stephen Smalley
2013-01-08 18:17 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 20:01 ` John Johansen
2013-01-15 4:17 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-01-08 20:22 ` Kees Cook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87d2xb3440.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox