qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] live snapshot wiki updated


From: Cleber Rosa
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] live snapshot wiki updated
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:34:23 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110621 Fedora/3.1.11-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.11

On 07/20/2011 10:34 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 07/20/2011 08:50 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
Just as a reminder: with DAC, if a guest is compromised and somehow
escalates to QEMU, it could disable its isolation (ie, by setting their
own image files world readable). I guess we shouldn't try to fix the DAC
model, but fix what's preventing us from fully using MAC, even though
it's outside of QEMU.

I don't see how a guest making its data world readable is a fundamental problem.

Well, if we're discussing security models and how to provide the best isolation we can to VMs/QEMU instances, then a VM being able to read (or even write) data of another VM *is* a fundamental problem. "setting their own imagine files world readable" is just one example of how that could be accomplished.


DAC is a fundamental part of the Unix design and is something that administrators understand very well.

That's is a true sentence, but it does not make DAC the most appropriate solution here.

I completely understand the value of MAC but to argue that we shouldn't present DAC as an option I think is fundamentally wrong.

I never said, and really don't think we shouldn't provide other security options/models, this is actually part of the well accepted "security in multiple layers" strategy.

I did assume, though, we were aiming for the best isolation level, and that is definitely MAC. DAC may indeed be good enough for some, but definitely not good enough for many others.

CR.


Regards,

Anthony Liguori


CR.


Regards,

Anthony Liguori









reply via email to

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