On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:22:12AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 02/07/2014 08:33 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
My overall thoughts:
If we had a way to do _just_ the mknod, then open the file, and pass the
fd back to the parent, then do labeling on the fd from the parent
context (rather than on the path in the child context), it would make
for a smaller child action easier to audit. But I'm not sure that would
get the labeling right - it looks like we have to label the actual path
name in the child. Or even if selinux took a leaf from openat() and
friends, and gave us the ability to do actions on a name relative to an
fd, then all we'd need to do is fork, change namespace, open the fd of
the container directory, pass that back, then do the remaining options
in the parent, where life is much easier.
The FD passing idea is interesting. I think I will explore that idea
further to see if it is viable before we finalize this.
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|