Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1490583

Re: [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Tue 2016-09-20 19:08:23, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> 
> On 15/09/2016 11:19, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> >> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as the
> >> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic security
> >> policies. The goal of this new stackable Linux Security Module (LSM) called
> >> Landlock is to allow any process, including unprivileged ones, to create
> >> powerful security sandboxes comparable to the Seatbelt/XNU Sandbox or the
> >> OpenBSD Pledge. This kind of sandbox help to mitigate the security impact of
> >> bugs or unexpected/malicious behaviors in userland applications.
> >>
> >> The first RFC [1] was focused on extending seccomp while staying at the syscall
> >> level. This brought a working PoC but with some (mitigated) ToCToU race
> >> conditions due to the seccomp ptrace hole (now fixed) and the non-atomic
> >> syscall argument evaluation (hence the LSM hooks).
> > 
> > Long and nice description follows. Should it go to Documentation/
> > somewhere?
> > 
> > Because some documentation would be useful...
> 
> Right, but I was looking for feedback before investing in documentation. :)

Heh. And I was hoping to learn what I'm reviewing. Too bad :-).

								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2016-09-24 09:50 +0200

csiph-web