[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160914212054.GC57174@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:20:55 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
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>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.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>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 21/22] bpf,landlock: Add optional skb pointer in the
Landlock context
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:24:14AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> This is a proof of concept to expose optional values that could depend
> of the process access rights.
>
> There is two dedicated flags: LANDLOCK_FLAG_ACCESS_SKB_READ and
> LANDLOCK_FLAG_ACCESS_SKB_WRITE. Each of them can be activated to access
> eBPF functions manipulating a skb in a read or write way.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
...
> /* Handle check flags */
> #define LANDLOCK_FLAG_FS_DENTRY (1 << 0)
> @@ -619,12 +621,15 @@ struct landlock_handle {
> * @args: LSM hook arguments, see include/linux/lsm_hooks.h for there
> * description and the LANDLOCK_HOOK* definitions from
> * security/landlock/lsm.c for their types.
> + * @opt_skb: optional skb pointer, accessible with the
> + * LANDLOCK_FLAG_ACCESS_SKB_* flags for network-related hooks.
> */
> struct landlock_data {
> __u32 hook; /* enum landlock_hook_id */
> __u16 origin; /* LANDLOCK_FLAG_ORIGIN_* */
> __u16 cookie; /* seccomp RET_LANDLOCK */
> __u64 args[6];
> + __u64 opt_skb;
> };
missing something here.
This patch doesn't make use of it.
That's something for the future?
How that field will be populated?
Why make it different vs the rest or args[6] ?
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.
