From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D06691A9E for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:23:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from namei.org (namei.org [65.99.196.166]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80679E6 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 17:23:33 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris To: Christian Brauner In-Reply-To: <20190719093538.dhyopljyr5ns33qx@brauner.io> Message-ID: References: <20190719093538.dhyopljyr5ns33qx@brauner.io> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: mic@digikod.net, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] seccomp List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Christian Brauner wrote: > There is a close connection between 1. and 2. When a watcher intercepts > a syscall from a watchee and starts to inspect its arguments it can - > depending on the syscall rather often actually - determine whether or > not the syscall would succeed or fail. If it knows that the syscall will > succeed it currently still has to perform it in lieu of the watchee > since there is no way to tell the kernel to "resume" or actually perform > the syscall. It would be nice if we could discuss approaches to enabling > this feature as well. Landlock is exploring userspace access control via the seccomp syscall with ebpf, but from within the same process: https://landlock.io/ It may be worth investigating whether Landlock could be extended to a split watcher/watchee model. -- James Morris