Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@sous-sol.org):
> * David Lang (dlang@digitalinsight.com) wrote:
> > what if the people administering the container are different from the 
> > people administering the host?
> 
> Yes, I alluded to that.
> 
> > in that case the people working in the container want to be able to 
> > implement and change their own policy, and the people working on the host 
> > don't want to have to implement changes to their main policy config (wtih 
> > all the auditing that would be involved with it) every time a container 
> > wants to change it's internal policy.
> 
> *nod*
> 
> > I can definantly see where a container aware policy on the master would be 
> > useful, but I can also see where the ability to nest seperate policies 
> > would be useful.
> 
> This is all fine.  The question is whether this is a policy management
> issue or a kernel infrastructure issue.  So far, it's not clear that this
> really necessitates kernel infrastructure changes to support container
> aware policies to be loaded by physical host admin/owner or the virtual
> host admin.  The place where it breaks down is if each virtual host
> wants not only to control its own policy, but also its security model.

What do you define as 'policy', and how is it different from the
security model?

> Then we are left with stacking modules or heavier isolation (as in Xen).

Hmm, talking about 'container' in this sense is confusing, because we're
not yet clear on what a container is.

So I'm trying to get a handle on what we really want to do.

Talking about namespaces is tricky.  For instance if I do
clone(CLONE_NEWNS), the new process is in a new fs namespace, but the fs
objects are still the same, so if it loads an LSM, then perhaps at most
the new process should only control mount activities in its own
namespace.

Frankly I thought, and am still not unconvinced, that containers owned
by someone other than the system owner would/should never want to load
their own LSMs, so that this wasn't a problem.  Isolation, as Chris has
mentioned, would be taken care of by the very nature of namespaces.

There are of course two alternatives...  First, we might want to allow the
machine admin to insert per-container/per-namespace LSMs.    To support
this case, we would need a way for the admin to tag a container some way
identifying it as being subject to a particular set of security_ops.  

Second, we might want container admins to insert LSMs.  In addition to
a straightforward way of tagging subjects/objects with their container,
we'd need to implement at least permissions for "may insert global LSM",
"may insert container LSM", and "may not insert any LSM."  This might be
sufficient if we trust userspace to always create full containers.
Otherwise we might want to support meta-policy along the lines of "may
authorize ptrace and mount hooks only", or even "not subject to the
global inode_permission hook, and may create its own."  (yuck)

But so much of this depends on how the namespaces/containers end up
being implemented...

-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/