On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 13:59 +0800, Gao feng wrote: > On 06/11/2013 05:24 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Gao feng (gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > >> On 06/07/2013 06:47 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote: > >>> Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx): > >>>> Quoting Gao feng (gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > >>>>> On 05/07/2013 10:20 AM, Gao feng wrote: > In my option, the audit rules(inode, tree_list, filter) , some of audit > controller related resources(enabled,pid,portid...) and skb queue, audit > netlink sockets,kauditd thread should be per-userns. The audit user message > which generated by the user in container should be per-userns too. > > Since netns is not implemented as a hierarchy, and the network related > resources are not global. so network related audit message should be per-userns too. > > The security related audit message should be send to init user namespace > as we discussed before. Maybe tty related audit message should be send > to init user namespace too, I have no idea now. > > The next step, I will post a new patchset which only make the audit user > message and the basic audit resource per userns. I think this patchset > will easy to be reviewed and accepted, And will not influence the host. > This patchset contains the below patches: I think this would be easier for us do from a certification and doumentation PoV if we had an audit namespace, not tied to the user namespace. creating a new audit namespace should require CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL in the user namespace which created the current audit namespace. Does that make sense? I don't mind messages staying completely inside the current namespace, but that means we can't give unpriv users (even if they have priv in their user namespace) a new audit namespace... _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
