On Fri, 13 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Say i'm a user-space sandbox developer who wants to enforce that sandboxed > code > should only be allowed to open files in /home/sandbox/, /lib/ and /usr/lib/. > > It is a simple and sensible security feature, agreed? It allows most code to > run well and link to countless libraries - but no access to other files is > allowed.
Not really. Firstly, what is the security goal of these restrictions? Then, are the restrictions complete and unbypassable? How do you reason about the behavior of the system as a whole? > I argue that this is the LSM and audit subsystems designed right: in the long > run it could allow everything that LSM does at the moment - and so much more > ... Now you're proposing a redesign of the security subsystem. That's a significant undertaking. In the meantime, we have a simple, well-defined enhancement to seccomp which will be very useful to current users in reducing their kernel attack surface. We should merge that, and the security subsystem discussion can carry on separately. - James -- James Morris <jmor...@namei.org> _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
