Subject: Re: Real networking namespace

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:08:20 -0700

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:12:15 -0400
Paul Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Friday 09 October 2009 12:44:52 pm Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 12:37 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 08:38 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > The existing networking namespace model is unattractive for what I
> > > > want, has anyone investigated better alternatives?
> > > >
> > > > I would like to be able to allow access to a network interface and
> > > > associated objects (routing tables etc), to be controlled by Mandatory
> > > > Access Control API's. I.e grant access to eth0 and to only certain
> > > > processes.  Some the issues with the existing models are:
> > > >   * eth0 and associated objects don't really exist in filesystem so
> > > >     not subject to LSM style control (SeLinux/SMACK/TOMOYO)
> 
> As Stephen points out, SELinux does have the ability to assign security labels 
> to network interfaces, check out the 'semanage' command.  A while back I wrote 
> up something about the SELinux network "ingress/egress" access controls:
> 
>  * http://paulmoore.livejournal.com/2128.html

I was hoping to be able to not have inaccessible interfaces visible,
is it possible to not have interfaces show up in commands like:
  ip link show
or sysfs?

--