30 messages in com.xensource.lists.xen-develRe: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][ACM] kernel e...
FromSent OnAttachments
Bryan D. Payne24 Jul 2006 09:23.diff
Keir Fraser24 Jul 2006 10:28 
Bryan D Payne24 Jul 2006 13:09 
Reiner Sailer24 Jul 2006 17:20 
Keir Fraser25 Jul 2006 02:52 
Bryan D Payne25 Jul 2006 10:45 
Steven Hand25 Jul 2006 11:48 
Mike D. Day26 Jul 2006 06:25 
Keir Fraser26 Jul 2006 06:49 
Reiner Sailer26 Jul 2006 08:47 
Mike D. Day26 Jul 2006 10:45 
Keir Fraser26 Jul 2006 11:06 
Mike D. Day26 Jul 2006 11:23 
Andrew Warfield26 Jul 2006 11:49 
Reiner Sailer26 Jul 2006 14:21 
Harry Butterworth26 Jul 2006 15:22 
Reiner Sailer26 Jul 2006 15:51 
Andrew Warfield26 Jul 2006 16:04 
Harry Butterworth26 Jul 2006 18:40 
Harry Butterworth27 Jul 2006 02:41 
Reiner Sailer27 Jul 2006 08:37 
Harry Butterworth27 Jul 2006 09:26 
Harry Butterworth27 Jul 2006 09:36 
Reiner Sailer27 Jul 2006 09:58 
Harry Butterworth27 Jul 2006 10:06 
Harry Butterworth27 Jul 2006 10:18 
Reiner Sailer27 Jul 2006 10:38 
Harry Butterworth27 Jul 2006 10:43 
Reiner Sailer27 Jul 2006 10:52 
Harry Butterworth27 Jul 2006 11:37 
Subject:Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][ACM] kernel enforcement of vbd policies via blkback driver
From:Harry Butterworth (har@hebutterworth.freeserve.co.uk)
Date:07/27/2006 02:41:06 AM
List:com.xensource.lists.xen-devel

On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 18:51 -0400, Reiner Sailer wrote:

So basically, the xenstore++ is in a stripped down secured domain and someone with role-based access privileges communicates with xenstore ++ to connect a resource to a domain. Xenstore++ checks the permissions and sets up the connection where the protocol description to use is an attribute of the resource class. The protocol is policed and if it's violated then either the resource provider (BE) or consumer (FE) or both get blown away.

There can be generic mechanisms in xenstore++ for colouring resources and grouping roles etc to do fancy MAC stuff.

...or something like that.

Hmm... this is not how I see xenstore today. Did you discuss what it takes to implement the "++"? (especially the part where you suggest moving xenstore in its on secured domain sounds very interesting)

No. I didn't discuss what it would take to implement it.

Personally I'd start by defining a fault-tolerant cluster architecture and then build it inside that. That would be a fair bit of work up-front but I think a lot of the significant use-cases demand it and it would have a discriminating impact on the implementation.

Would this be a non-intrusive change to Xen?

Probably not with my approach :-)

Reiner