[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170826010330.tuospq5h43fv3tlp@ast-mbp>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:03:32 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>,
Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
SELinux <Selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>, mic@...ikod.net
Subject: Re: Permissions for eBPF objects
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:07:27PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 08/25/2017 09:52 PM, Chenbo Feng wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 11:01 -0700, Jeffrey Vander Stoep via Selinux
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I’d like to get your thoughts on adding LSM permission checks on BPF
> > > > > objects.
before reinventing the wheel please take a look at landlock work.
Everything that was discussed in this thread is covered by it.
The patches have been in development for more than a year and most of the early
issues have been resolved.
It will be presented again during security summit in LA in September.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists