From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55521) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VJoR2-0004rr-RE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:42:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VJoQy-0006Qr-J4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:42:36 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51331) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VJoQy-0006PF-9O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:42:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:49:14 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20130911164913.GI2293@redhat.com> References: <1378495308-24560-1-git-send-email-otubo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1378495308-24560-3-git-send-email-otubo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52309E42.2080802@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52309E42.2080802@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2 2/3] seccomp: adding command line support for blacklist Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Corey Bryant Cc: pmoore@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Otubo On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:45:54PM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote: > > > On 09/06/2013 03:21 PM, Eduardo Otubo wrote: > >New command line options for the seccomp blacklist feature: > > > > $ qemu -sandbox on[,strict=] > > > >The strict parameter will turn on or off the new system call blacklist > > I mentioned this before but I'll say it again since I think it needs > to be discussed. Since this regresses support (it'll prevent -net > bridge and -net tap from using execv) the concern I have with the > strict=on|off option is whether or not we will have the flexibility > to modify the blacklist once QEMU is released with this support. Of > course we should be able to add more syscalls to the blacklist as > long as they don't regress QEMU functionality. But if we want to > add a syscall that does regress QEMU functionality, I think we'd > have to add a new command line option, which doesn't seem desirable. > > So a more flexible approach may be necessary. Maybe the blacklist > should be passed on the command line, which would enable it to be > defined by libvirt and passed to QEMU. I know Paul is working on > something for libvirt so maybe that answers this question. On the face of it, I'm not at all a fan of the idea of libvirt having to pass a syscall whitelist/blacklist to QEMU. IMHO that would be exposing too much knowledge of QEMU impl details to libvirt. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|