About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Wed 01 Oct 2003 - 20:47:47 BST

On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:15:36PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Rik van Riel (riel_at_redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Chris Wright wrote:
> >
> > > Multiplexing, future functionality, etc...this reasoning was shot down
> > > before. The preferred method was to have well-typed interfaces that
> > > are simple and not overloaded. Any chance some of these needs could be
> > > met with existing infrastructure in 2.6? For example, similar to the
> > > sys_new_s_context issue was resolved for LSM with the /proc/pid/attr/
> > > interface, could this be reused?
> >
> > OK, a few comments here:
> >
> > 1) the vserver functionality definately is not "future functionality",
> > people have been using it in production for a few years already
> Sorry, I don't mean to imply core vserver is all new, just reacting to
> one of the justifciations being "people are planning future
> functionality."
> > 2) currently vserver only runs on 2.4 (and I think 2.2), it hasn't
> > been ported to 2.6 yet and I definately plan to port it in such
> > a way that we will be reusing other infrastructure whereever
> > possible ... it's just that vserver needs some infrastructure
> > that is not possible inside LSM
> >
> > 3) the needs that can be met with existing infrastructure, like
> > CLONE_NEWNS or LSM should definately move out of the vserver
> > patch in the port to 2.6
> Glad to hear it. I haven't looked closely at vserver since about 2.4.14,
> but I had hoped to find ways to minimize the vserver patch by reusing
> some of the LSM infrastructure. The biggest issue was the ability to
> virtualize the results of something like the hostname to be ctx
> specific, which was deemed too much to do for the LSM interfaces.
> > 4) I'm all for generalising the interface, how about sys_virtual_context ?
> I _think_ this can be done with /proc/[pid]/attr/. This allows you to
> set the security attributes of a process. IIRC, the sys_s_new_context
> was something helpers would run before execve'ing a process into the new
> context (sorry if my details are off). Same can be acheived with
> /proc/[pid]/attr/exec, but writing the new context to that file, then
> execve'ing. Here's a link with more details on the API:

one of the advantages the current _and_ future vserver project
has over 'changing/setting some features for a process' is the
concept of a context layer, residing between kernel and processes
_belonging_ to a context ...

you could, for example set up a context which allows a maximum
of 10 processes, limited to one ethernet interface, using it's
own root/user quota, start some 'virtual' server in this context
doing all this init stuff, and then visit this context from
outside, via a simple 'context' change ... if you've got the
right capabilities/permissions ...

I can not imagine how you would do that with the /proc/<pid>/attr/
interface, but I'm sure you can explain it to me ...


> http://mail.wirex.com/pipermail/linux-security-module/2003-April/4264.html
> thanks,
> -chris
> --
> Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo_at_vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view
[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Wed 01 Oct 2003 - 21:29:34 BST by hypermail 2.1.3