Re: SELinux mixed/virtualisation policy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/11/2011 12:33 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:24 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 04/11/2011 09:40 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 14:12 -0300, Ramon de Carvalho Valle wrote:
>>>> However, I and Dan Walsh (who kindly informed me about libvirt) both
>>>> agree that dynamic labeling is more secure than manual labeling using
>>>> MLS policy, for virtual machine environments.
>>>
>>> Can you elaborate on what your concern is there?  If it is merely that
>>> two VMs at the same level are not isolated via the MLS policy, then that
>>> isn't a MLS concern, and you could use TE instead to isolate the VMs of
>>> the same level.
>>>
>> I think what he is after is the convenience of dynamic labeling, for
>> isolation.  Yes he could create new types for each instance, which every
>> virtual machine would need, this could cause a potential explosion in
>> the number of types and would be subject to failure.  It would be
>> putting a large onus on the Admin to manage all of these types.  The
>> real beauty of dynamic labeling is that it just works.
> 
> The types could be automatically generated from a template, and managed
> by libvirt in much the same way it presently manages categories.
> 
> In any event, he can do the same thing by use of categories rather than
> introducing an incomparable set of sensitivities, and that wouldn't
> require any changes to the policy toolchain or kernel security server.
> 

Well yes, but currently svirt can support out of the box ~500,000 svirt
instances,  If we when with  a type system, this would probably some
problems adding a couple of million types.  I don't think we want svirt
recompiling and loading policy every time it launches a virtual machine.
 :^)

Reserving a pool of categories at might be the way to go.  But at what
security level?  s15 or s0?  Also what about shared data between the
virtual machines, read only content.  Currently that is just labeled s0.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk2jQXoACgkQrlYvE4MpobOVmACeKPS05jwZGV1alF/wM4w3Lunw
+wUAni9QZ/sBrNxxxCKZEYpKEZxEYkJi
=Ptgb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.


[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux