Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9579dae-625e-cd91-0656-821a8d1f2893@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:30:35 -0800
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, David Drysdale
 <drysdale@...gle.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
 Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
 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>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 05/11] seccomp,landlock: Enforce Landlock
 programs per process hierarchy

On 2/27/2018 8:39 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>> [ Snip ]
> An earlier version of the patch set used the seccomp filter chain.
> Mickaël, what exactly was wrong with that approach other than that the
> seccomp() syscall was awkward for you to use?  You could add a
> seccomp_add_landlock_rule() syscall if you needed to.
>
> As a side comment, why is this an LSM at all, let alone a non-stacking
> LSM?  It would make a lot more sense to me to make Landlock depend on
> having LSMs configured in but to call the landlock hooks directly from
> the security_xyz() hooks.

Please, no. It is my serious intention to have at least the
infrastructure blob management in within a release or two, and
I think that's all Landlock needs. The security_xyz() hooks are
sufficiently hackish as it is without unnecessarily adding more
special cases.


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.