Quoting John Johansen ([email protected]): > Well I won't agree the guest shouldn't have its own policy (it depends > on your use case), but I do agree the host should be able to set a > domain to protect it self from the guest, but until AppArmor supports > policy stacking the solution is either or. > > The solution depends on what confinement is sought. > > 1. If the guest is to have its own policy, then the host needs to create > a new policy namespace, and then it needs to transition the guest to the > new namespace. Guest policy will then be loaded into the new namespace, > and will not generally* conflict with system policy.
That's great - can the guest's namespace have constraints placed on it by the host rules, which all domains in the guest namespace will be subject to? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/876968 Title: host Apparmor rules are applied to guests in spite of guests loading new rules To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxc/+bug/876968/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
