From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>, "Sargun Dhillon" <sargun@sargun.me>,
"Network Development" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Linux API" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"LSM List" <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
"Daniel Mack" <daniel@zonque.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:11:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160827181153.GB38754@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVK1yQw=8ckLn3dcB4LuKft0NOrvQFoyFRs98ON00WgBw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 12:30:36AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > cgroup is the common way to group multiple tasks.
> > Without cgroup only parent<->child relationship will be possible,
> > which will limit usability of such lsm to a master task that controls
> > its children. Such api restriction would have been ok, if we could
> > extend it in the future, but unfortunately task-centric won't allow it
> > without creating a parallel lsm that is cgroup based.
> > Therefore I think we have to go with cgroup-centric api and your
> > application has to use cgroups from the start though only parent-child
> > would have been enough.
> > Also I don't think the kernel can afford two bpf based lsm. One task
> > based and another cgroup based, so we have to find common ground
> > that suits both use cases.
> > Having unprivliged access is a subset. There is no strong reason why
> > cgroup+lsm+bpf should be limited to root only always.
> > When we can guarantee no pointer leaks, we can allow unpriv.
>
> I don't really understand what you mean. In the context of landlock,
> which is a *sandbox*, can one of you explain a use case that
> materially benefits from this type of cgroup usage? I haven't thought
> of one.
In case of seccomp-like sandbox where parent controls child processes
cgroup is not needed. It's needed when container management software
needs to control a set of applications. If we can have one bpf-based lsm
that works via cgroup and without, I'd be fine with it. Right now
I haven't seen a plausible proposal to do that. Therefore cgroup based
api is a common api that works for sandbox as well, though requiring
parent to create a cgroup just to control a single child is cumbersome.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-27 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-25 10:32 [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 01/10] landlock: Add Kconfig Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 02/10] bpf: Move u64_to_ptr() to BPF headers and inline it Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 03/10] bpf,landlock: Add a new arraymap type to deal with (Landlock) handles Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 04/10] seccomp: Split put_seccomp_filter() with put_seccomp() Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 05/10] seccomp: Handle Landlock Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 06/10] landlock: Add LSM hooks Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 18:56 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-30 20:10 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 20:18 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-30 20:27 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 07/10] landlock: Add errno check Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 11:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 08/10] landlock: Handle file system comparisons Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 11:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-25 14:10 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-26 14:57 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-27 13:45 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 11:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-25 14:44 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-26 12:55 ` Tejun Heo
2016-08-26 14:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-26 15:50 ` Tejun Heo
2016-08-26 2:14 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-26 15:10 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-26 23:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 7:30 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-27 18:11 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2016-08-28 8:14 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-27 14:06 ` [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 18:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 19:35 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 20:43 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 21:14 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-28 8:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-28 9:42 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 18:55 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-30 20:20 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 20:23 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-30 20:33 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 20:55 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-30 21:45 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-31 1:36 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-31 3:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-27 14:19 ` [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (netfilter match) Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 18:32 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 14:34 ` [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (program types) Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 18:19 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 19:55 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 20:56 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 21:18 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 10/10] samples/landlock: Add sandbox example Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 11:05 ` [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-25 13:57 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 7:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-27 15:10 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 15:21 ` [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing (cgroup delegation) Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 16:06 ` [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-30 19:51 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 19:55 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-09-15 9:19 ` Pavel Machek
2016-09-20 17:08 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-24 7:45 ` Pavel Machek
2016-10-03 22:56 ` Kees Cook
2016-10-05 20:30 ` Mickaël Salaün
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160827181153.GB38754@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=daniel@zonque.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sargun@sargun.me \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).