[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] seccomp: adding a second whitelist

From: Corey Bryant
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] seccomp: adding a second whitelist
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:08:28 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8

On 09/03/2013 02:02 PM, Corey Bryant wrote:

On 08/30/2013 10:21 AM, Eduardo Otubo wrote:

On 08/29/2013 05:34 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:04:32PM -0300, Eduardo Otubo wrote:
Now there's a second whitelist, right before the vcpu starts. The
whitelist is the same as the first one, except for exec() and select().

-netdev tap,downscript=/path/to/script requires exec() in the QEMU
shutdown code path.  Will this work with seccomp?

I actually don't know, but I'll test that as well. Can you run a test
with this patch and -netdev? I mean, if you're pointing that out you
might have a scenario already setup, right?


This uses exec() in net/tap.c.

I think if we're going to introduce a sandbox environment that restricts
existing QEMU behavior, then we have to introduce a new argument to the
-sandbox option.  So for example, "-sandbox on" would continue to use
the whitelist that allows everything in QEMU to work (or at least it
should :).  And something like "-sandbox on,strict=on" would use the
whitelist + blacklist.

If this is acceptable though, then I wonder how we could go about adding
new syscalls to the blacklist in future QEMU releases without regressing
"-sandbox on,strict=on".

Maybe a better approach is to provide support that allows libvirt to define the blacklist and pass it to QEMU?

By the way, are any test buckets running regularly with -sandbox on?

Corey Bryant

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]