* Sam Vilain ([email protected]) wrote: > This raises a very interesting question. All those LSM globals, > shouldn't those be virtualisable, too? After all, isn't it natural to > want to apply a different security policy to different sets of processes? Which globals? Policy could be informed by relevant containers. thanks, -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Sam Vilain <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- References:
- [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Herbert Poetzl <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Herbert Poetzl <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- From: Sam Vilain <[email protected]>
- [RFC] Virtualization steps
- Prev by Date: Re: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER and module vermagic
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.16-mm2] Kconfig SND_SEQUENCER_OSS help text fix
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- Index(es):
 |