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

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing
Date	Sat, 24 Sep 2016 09:50:01 +0200
Message-ID	<skPSF-6AA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<sa0op-8hT-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <shAZQ-57M-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sjwIq-5RK-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o"
Content-Disposition	inline
User-Agent	Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
List-ID	<linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	61
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>, David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>, James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date	Sat, 24 Sep 2016 09:45:25 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID	<20160924074525.GA28371@amd>
X-Original-References	<1472121165-29071-1-git-send-email-mic@digikod.net> <20160915091902.GA13132@amd> <57E16D07.4050301@digikod.net>
X-Original-Sender	linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Xref	csiph.com linux.kernel:1490583

Show key headers only | 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