Re: [RFC] cgroups: implement device whitelist lsm (v2)

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:41:21PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org):
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > 
> > > Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org):
> > > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > True, but while this change simplifies the code a bit, the semantics
> > > > > seem more muddled - devcg will be enforcing when CONFIG_CGROUP_DEV=y
> > > > > and:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	SECURITY=n or
> > > > > 	rootplug is enabled
> > > > > 	capabilities is enabled
> > > > > 	smack is enabled
> > > > > 	selinux+capabilities is enabled
> > > > 
> > > > Well, this is how real systems are going to be deployed.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, do you mean with capabilities?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > All Fedora, RHEL, CentOS etc. ship with SELinux+capabilities.  I can't 
> > imagine not enabling them on other kernels.
> > 
> > > > It becomes confusing, IMHO, if you have to change which secondary LSM you 
> > > > stack with SELinux to enable a cgroup feature.
> > > 
> > > So you're saying selinux without capabilities should still be able to
> > > use dev_cgroup?  (Just making sure I understand right)
> > 
> > Nope, SELinux always stacks with capabilities, so havng the cgroup hooks 
> > in capabilities makes sense (rather than having us change the secondary 
> > stacking LSM just to enable a feature).
> 
> Oh, ok.
> 
> Will let the patch stand until Pavel and Greg comment then.

My main question was why was that file in the kernel/ directory?
Shouldn't that also be in the security/ directory?

And to be honest, I didn't really look at it at all other than the
diffstat to make sure you weren't messing with the kobj_map stuff
anymore :)

thanks,

greg k-h