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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1625688 > unrolled thread

Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH net-next v6 06/11] seccomp,landlock: Handle Landlock events per process hierarchy

Started byKees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
First post2017-04-19 01:00 +0200
Last post2017-04-19 01:00 +0200
Articles 1 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH net-next v6 06/11] seccomp,landlock:  Handle Landlock events per process hierarchy Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-04-19 01:00 +0200

#1625688 — Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH net-next v6 06/11] seccomp,landlock: Handle Landlock events per process hierarchy

FromKees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date2017-04-19 01:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH net-next v6 06/11] seccomp,landlock: Handle Landlock events per process hierarchy
Message-ID<txKgi-3qF-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 29/03/2017 12:35, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
>>> @@ -25,6 +30,9 @@ struct seccomp_filter;
>>>  struct seccomp {
>>>         int mode;
>>>         struct seccomp_filter *filter;
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER) && defined(CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK)
>>> +       struct landlock_events *landlock_events;
>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER && CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK */
>>>  };
>>
>> Sorry if this was discussed before, but since this is mean to be a
>> stackable LSM, I'm wondering if later you could move the events from
>> seccomp, and go with a security_task_alloc() model [1] ?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> [1] http://kernsec.org/pipermail/linux-security-module-archive/2017-March/000184.html
>>
>
> Landlock use the seccomp syscall to attach a rule to a process and using
> struct seccomp to store this rule make sense. There is currently no way
> to store multiple task->security, which is needed for a stackable LSM
> like Landlock, but we could move the events there if needed in the future.

It does stand out to me that the only thing landlock is using seccomp
for is its syscall... :P

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web