netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 07/15] landlock: user space API network support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:10:14 +0200
From:   Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To:     Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>
Cc:     willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, yusongping@...wei.com,
        artem.kuzin@...wei.com, anton.sirazetdinov@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 07/15] landlock: user space API network support


On 12/04/2022 16:05, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
> 
> 
> 4/12/2022 4:48 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>
>> On 12/04/2022 13:21, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/03/2022 14:44, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> @@ -184,7 +185,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(landlock_create_ruleset,
>>>>
>>>>       /* Checks content (and 32-bits cast). */
>>>>       if ((ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs | LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS) !=
>>>> -            LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS)
>>>> +             LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS)
>>>
>>> Don't add cosmetic changes. FYI, I'm relying on the way Vim does line 
>>> cuts, which is mostly tabs. Please try to do the same.
>>
>> Well, let's make it simple and avoid tacit rules. I'll update most of 
>> the existing Landlock code and tests to be formatted with clang-format 
>> (-i *.[ch]), and I'll update the landlock-wip branch so that you can 
>> base your next patch series on it. There should be some exceptions 
>> that need customization but we'll see that in the next series. Anyway, 
>> don't worry too much, just make sure you don't have style-only changes 
>> in your patches.
> 
>    I have already rebased my next patch series on your landlock-wip 
> branch. So I will wait for your changes meanwhile refactoring my v5 
> patch series according your comments.

Good.

> 
> Also I want to discuss adding demo in sandboxer.c to show how landlock
> supports network sandboxing:
> 
>      - Add additional args like "LL_NET_BIND=port1:...:portN"
>      - Add additional args like "LL_NET_CONNECT=port1:...:portN"
>      - execv 2 bash procceses:
>          1. first bash listens in loop - $ nc -l -k -p <port1> -v
>          2. second bash to connects the first one - $ nc <ip> <port>
> 
> What do you think? its possible to present this demo in the next v5 
> patch series.

This looks good! I think LL_TCP_BIND and LL_TCP_CONNECT would fit better 
though.

I'm not sure if I already said that, but please remove the "RFC " part 
for the next series.