LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>,
	David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
	"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>,
	Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>,
	"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 07/22] landlock: Handle file comparisons
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 23:25:10 +0200
Message-ID: <57DB11B6.7090500@digikod.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160914232418.GD60248@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3218 bytes --]


On 15/09/2016 01:24, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:22AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>>
>>> I would suggest for the next RFC to do minimal 7 patches up to this point
>>> with simple example that demonstrates the use case.
>>> I would avoid all unpriv stuff and all of seccomp for the next RFC as well,
>>> otherwise I don't think we can realistically make forward progress, since
>>> there are too many issues raised in the subsequent patches.
>>
>> I hope we will find a common agreement about seccomp vs cgroup… I think
>> both approaches have their advantages, can be complementary and nicely
>> combined.
> 
> I don't mind having both task based lsm and cgroup based as long as
> infrastracture is not duplicated and scaling issues from earlier version
> are resolved.

It should be much better with this RFC.

> I'm proposing to do cgroup only for the next RFC, since mine and Sargun's
> use case for this bpf+lsm+cgroup is _not_ security or sandboxing.

Well, LSM purpose is to do security stuff. The main goal of Landlock is
to bring security features to userland, including unprivileged
processes, at least via the seccomp interface [1].

> No need for unpriv, no_new_priv to cgroups are other things that Andy
> is concerned about.

I'm concern about security too! :)

> 
>> Unprivileged sandboxing is the main goal of Landlock. This should not be
>> a problem, even for privileged features, thanks to the new subtype/access.
> 
> yes. the point that unpriv stuff can come later after agreement is reached.
> If we keep arguing about seccomp details this set won't go anywhere.
> Even in basic part (which is cgroup+bpf+lsm) are plenty of questions
> to be still agreed.

Using the seccomp(2) (unpriv) *interface* is OK according to a more
recent thread [1].

[1]
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160915044852.GA66000@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com

> 
>> Agreed. With this RFC, the Checmate features (i.e. network helpers)
>> should be able to sit on top of Landlock.
> 
> I think neither of them should be called fancy names for no technical reason.
> We will have only one bpf based lsm. That's it and it doesn't
> need an obscure name. Directory name can be security/bpf/..stuff.c

I disagree on an LSM named "BPF". I first started with the "seccomp LSM"
name (first RFC) but I later realized that it is confusing because
seccomp is associated to its syscall and the underlying features. Same
thing goes for BPF. It is also artificially hard to grep on a name too
used in the kernel source tree.
Making an association between the generic eBPF mechanism and a security
centric approach (i.e. LSM) seems a bit reductive (for BPF). Moreover,
the seccomp interface [1] can still be used.

Landlock is a nice name to depict a sandbox as an enclave (i.e. a
landlocked country/state). I want to keep this name, which is simple,
express the goal of Landlock nicely and is comparable to other sandbox
mechanisms as Seatbelt or Pledge.
Landlock should not be confused with the underlying eBPF implementation.
Landlock could use more than only eBPF in the future and eBPF could be
used in other LSM as well.

 Mickaël


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

  reply index

Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-14  7:23 [RFC v3 00/22] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:23 ` [RFC v3 01/22] landlock: Add Kconfig Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:23 ` [RFC v3 02/22] bpf: Move u64_to_ptr() to BPF headers and inline it Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:23 ` [RFC v3 03/22] bpf,landlock: Add a new arraymap type to deal with (Landlock) handles Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 18:51   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-14 23:22     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 23:28       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-15 21:51         ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-10-03 23:53   ` Kees Cook
2016-10-05 22:02     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:23 ` [RFC v3 04/22] bpf: Set register type according to is_valid_access() Mickaël Salaün
2016-10-19 14:54   ` Thomas Graf
2016-10-19 15:10     ` Daniel Borkmann
2016-09-14  7:23 ` [RFC v3 05/22] bpf,landlock: Add eBPF program subtype and is_valid_subtype() verifier Mickaël Salaün
2016-10-19 15:01   ` Thomas Graf
2016-09-14  7:23 ` [RFC v3 06/22] landlock: Add LSM hooks Mickaël Salaün
2016-10-19 15:19   ` Thomas Graf
2016-10-19 22:42     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 07/22] landlock: Handle file comparisons Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 19:07   ` Jann Horn
2016-09-14 22:39     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 21:06   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-14 23:02     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 23:24       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-15 21:25         ` Mickaël Salaün [this message]
2016-09-20  0:12           ` lsm naming dilemma. " Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-20  1:10             ` Sargun Dhillon
2016-09-20 16:58               ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-10-03 23:30   ` Kees Cook
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 08/22] seccomp: Fix documentation for struct seccomp_filter Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 09/22] seccomp: Move struct seccomp_filter in seccomp.h Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 10/22] seccomp: Split put_seccomp_filter() with put_seccomp() Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 11/22] seccomp,landlock: Handle Landlock hooks per process hierarchy Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 18:43   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-09-14 22:34     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-10-03 23:52       ` Kees Cook
2016-10-05 21:05         ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 12/22] bpf: Cosmetic change for bpf_prog_attach() Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 13/22] bpf/cgroup: Replace struct bpf_prog with union bpf_object Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 14/22] bpf/cgroup: Make cgroup_bpf_update() return an error code Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 21:16   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 15/22] bpf/cgroup: Move capability check Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 16/22] bpf/cgroup,landlock: Handle Landlock hooks per cgroup Mickaël Salaün
2016-10-03 23:43   ` Kees Cook
2016-10-05 20:58     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-10-05 21:25       ` Kees Cook
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 17/22] cgroup: Add access check for cgroup_get_from_fd() Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 22:06   ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 18/22] cgroup,landlock: Add CGRP_NO_NEW_PRIVS to handle unprivileged hooks Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 18:27   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-09-14 22:11     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-15  1:25       ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-09-15  2:19         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-15  2:27           ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-09-15  4:00             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-15  4:08               ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-09-15  4:31                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-15  4:38                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-09-15  4:48                     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-15 19:41                       ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-20  4:37                         ` Sargun Dhillon
2016-09-20 17:02                           ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-15 19:35         ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 19/22] landlock: Add interrupted origin Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 18:29   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-09-14 22:14     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-15  1:19       ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-10-03 23:46         ` Kees Cook
2016-10-05 21:01           ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 20/22] landlock: Add update and debug access flags Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 21/22] bpf,landlock: Add optional skb pointer in the Landlock context Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 21:20   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-14 22:46     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14  7:24 ` [RFC v3 22/22] samples/landlock: Add sandbox example Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-14 21:24   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-14 14:36 ` [RFC v3 00/22] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing David Laight

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=57DB11B6.7090500@digikod.net \
    --to=mic@digikod.net \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=daniel@zonque.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=drysdale@google.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=elena.reshetova@intel.com \
    --cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
    --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=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pmoore@redhat.com \
    --cc=sargun@sargun.me \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=wad@chromium.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

LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7 lkml/git/7.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8 lkml/git/8.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/9 lkml/git/9.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml \
		linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index lkml

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git