Re: [libvirt] RFC: extending sVirt to confine host apps which talk to libvirtd
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 11:15 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 15:41 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> What follows is a document outlining some thoughts I've been having
> on extending sVirt to allow confinement of applications which talk
> to libvirtd on the host, primarily focusing on use of SELinux, but
> also allowing a simple non-SElinux RBAC mechanism.
Are we reinventing a lot of PolicyKit? I don't think policykit does a
good job of using SELinux but it does attempt to solve most of the same
problem you are attempting to solve here. I just want to make sure it
was looked at, even if I like the approach you are taking here more...
I've not had time to dig deep into this, but a concern I had is how this
might affect other security drivers (in my case, specifically AppArmor,
but DAC alone might also be something to think about as well as any
future drivers like for SMACK or Tomoyo). Using something like
PolicyKit, if it is appropriate, could allow non-SElinux drivers to
benefit as well.
--
Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 836 bytes)