[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b0662712-53f4-1293-aa61-f0455301d7cc@digikod.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 23:15:37 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
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>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH net-next v6 06/11] seccomp,landlock:
Handle Landlock events per process hierarchy
On 29/03/2017 12:35, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.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.
Mickaël
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists