[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57C1B003.1030608@digikod.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 17:21:39 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>, David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing (cgroup
delegation)
Cc Tejun and the cgroups ML.
On 27/08/2016 17:10, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On 27/08/2016 09:40, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> # Sandbox example with conditional access control depending on cgroup
>>>
>>> $ mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/sandboxed
>>> $ ls /home
>>> user1
>>> $ LANDLOCK_CGROUPS='/sys/fs/cgroup/sandboxed' \
>>> LANDLOCK_ALLOWED='/bin:/lib:/usr:/tmp:/proc/self/fd/0' \
>>> ./sandbox /bin/sh -i
>>> $ ls /home
>>> user1
>>> $ echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/sandboxed/cgroup.procs
>>> $ ls /home
>>> ls: cannot open directory '/home': Permission denied
>>>
>>
>> Something occurs to me that isn't strictly relevant to landlock but
>> may be relevant to unprivileged cgroups: can you cause trouble by
>> setting up a nastily-configured cgroup and running a setuid program in
>> it?
>>
>
> I hope not… But the use of cgroups should not be mandatory for Landlock.
>
In a previous email:
On 26/08/2016 17:50, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I haven't looked in detail but in general I'm not too excited about
> layering security mechanism on top of cgroup. Maybe it makes some
> sense when security domain coincides with resource domains but at any
> rate please keep me in the loop.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
