Re: [RFC PATCH v9 05/16] ipe: add userspace interface
Paul Moore <[email protected]> Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:45:07 -0400
| Newsgroups | com.redhat.linux-audit,dev.linux.lists.dm-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-block,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-fscrypt,org.kernel.vger.linux-integrity,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHC9VhTs3Njfg=1baQ6=58rPLBmyB3cW0R-MfAaEcRF-jAaYBw@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 7:36 PM Fan Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:45:41PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 3:10???PM Fan Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:04:42PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 5:58???PM Fan Wu <[email protected]> wrote: ... > > I guess this does make me wonder about keeping a non-active policy > > loaded in the kernel, what purpose does that serve? > > > > The non-active policy doesn't serve anything unless it is activated. User can > even delete a policy if that is no longer needed. Non-active is just the default > state when a new policy is loaded. > > If IPE supports namespace, there is another use case where different containers > can select different policies as the active policy from among multiple loaded > policies. Deven has presented a demo of this during LSS 2021. But this goes > beyond the scope of this version. Do you plan to add namespace support at some point in the not-too-distant future? If so, I'm okay with keeping support for multiple policies, but if you think you're only going to support one active policy at a time, it might be better to remove support for multiple (inactive) policies. -- paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit