On 04/10/2016 01:52, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 14/09/2016 20:43, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>>> A Landlock program will be triggered according to its subtype/origin
>>>> bitfield. The LANDLOCK_FLAG_ORIGIN_SECCOMP value will trigger the
>>>> Landlock program when a seccomp filter will return RET_LANDLOCK.
>>>> Moreover, it is possible to return a 16-bit cookie which will be
>>>> readable by the Landlock programs in its context.
>>>
>>> Are you envisioning that the filters will return RET_LANDLOCK most of
>>> the time or rarely?  If it's most of the time, then maybe this could
>>> be simplified a bit by unconditionally calling the landlock filter and
>>> letting the landlock filter access a struct seccomp_data if needed.
>>
>> Exposing seccomp_data in a Landlock context may be a good idea. The main
>> implication is that Landlock programs may then be architecture specific
>> (if dealing with data) as seccomp filters are. Another point is that it
>> remove any direct binding between seccomp filters and Landlock programs.
>> I will try this (more simple) approach.
> 
> Yeah, I would prefer that the seccomp code isn't doing list management
> to identify the landlock hooks to trigger, etc. I think that's better
> done on the LSM side. And since multiple seccomp filters could trigger
> landlock, it may be best to just leave the low 16 bits unused
> entirely. Then all state management is handled by the landlock eBPF
> maps, not a value coming from seccomp that can get stomped on by new
> filters, etc.

Right, this approach should be simpler, more efficient and independent
from seccomp. This will be in the next RFC.