[Devel] Re: [PATCH 1/3] cr: add generic LSM c/r support (v4)
Serge E. Hallyn
serue at us.ibm.com
Fri Oct 2 15:31:54 PDT 2009
Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl at librato.com):
>
>
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl at librato.com):
> >>
> >> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >>> (wasn't versioning the patchsets before, so randomly pick 4 as
> >>> the version for this patchset...)
> >>>
> >>> Documentation/checkpoint/readme.txt begins:
> >>> """
> >>> Application checkpoint/restart is the ability to save the state
> >>> of a running application so that it can later resume its execution
> >>> from the time at which it was checkpointed.
> >>> """
> >>>
>
> [...]
>
> >>> + memset(ctx->lsm_name, 0, SECURITY_NAME_MAX + 1);
> >>> + strlcpy(ctx->lsm_name, security_get_lsm_name(), SECURITY_NAME_MAX + 1);
> >>> + ret = ckpt_write_buffer(ctx, ctx->lsm_name, SECURITY_NAME_MAX + 1);
> >>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + ret = security_checkpoint_header(ctx);
> >>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> +
> >> This is actually a case for a 'container-global' section that would
> >> appear after the header and before the rest of the image. (Would be
> >> useful also for network namespaces).
> >
> > But LSM's are specifically not containerized, so this is a host
> > property, not a container one.
>
> Hmmm... does that mean you can't apply one policy to one container
> and another policy to another ?
Yup.
> Anyway, it belongs to a 'global' section, that may have 2 parts:
> host and container. (Putting it between header and arch-header
> seems weird...)
Ok, then I'll add that in the next set.
> The header doesn't hold state, it is a declarative section about
> the properties of the original host (kernel and HW).
Ok, I see.
thanks,
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list