From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753783AbdBVFVx (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:21:53 -0500 Received: from mail-ua0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179]:35995 "EHLO mail-ua0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750890AbdBVFVn (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:21:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170222012632.4196-11-mic@digikod.net> References: <20170222012632.4196-1-mic@digikod.net> <20170222012632.4196-11-mic@digikod.net> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:21:21 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/10] landlock: Add user and kernel documentation for Landlock To: =?UTF-8?B?TWlja2HDq2wgU2FsYcO8bg==?= Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alexei Starovoitov , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Casey Schaufler , Daniel Borkmann , David Drysdale , "David S . Miller" , "Eric W . Biederman" , James Morris , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Matthew Garrett , Michael Kerrisk , Kees Cook , Paul Moore , Sargun Dhillon , "Serge E . Hallyn" , Shuah Khan , Tejun Heo , Thomas Graf , Will Drewry , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , Linux API , LSM List , Network Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.home.local id v1M5LuTm005318 On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > This documentation can be built with the Sphinx framework. > > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov > Cc: Andy Lutomirski > Cc: Daniel Borkmann > Cc: David S. Miller > Cc: James Morris > Cc: Jonathan Corbet > Cc: Kees Cook > Cc: Serge E. Hallyn > + > +Writing a rule > +-------------- > + > +To enforce a security policy, a thread first needs to create a Landlock rule. > +The easiest way to write an eBPF program depicting a security rule is to write > +it in the C language. As described in *samples/bpf/README.rst*, LLVM can > +compile such programs. Files *samples/bpf/landlock1_kern.c* and those in > +*tools/testing/selftests/landlock/rules/* can be used as examples. The > +following example is a simple rule to forbid file creation, whatever syscall > +may be used (e.g. open, mkdir, link...). > + > +.. code-block:: c > + > + static int deny_file_creation(struct landlock_context *ctx) > + { > + if (ctx->arg2 & LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_NEW) > + return 1; > + return 0; > + } > + Would it make sense to define landlock_context (or at least a prefix thereof) in here? Also, can't "arg2" have a better name? Can you specify what the return value means? Are 0 and 1 the only choices? Would "KILL" be useful? How about "COREDUMP"? > +File system action types > +------------------------ > + > +Flags are used to express actions. This makes it possible to compose actions > +and leaves room for future improvements to add more fine-grained action types. > + > +.. kernel-doc:: include/uapi/linux/bpf.h > + :doc: landlock_action_fs > + > +.. flat-table:: FS action types availability > + > + * - flags > + - since > + > + * - LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_EXEC > + - v1 > + > + * - LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_WRITE > + - v1 > + > + * - LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_READ > + - v1 > + > + * - LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_NEW > + - v1 > + > + * - LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_GET > + - v1 > + > + * - LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_REMOVE > + - v1 > + > + * - LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_IOCTL > + - v1 > + > + * - LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_LOCK > + - v1 > + > + * - LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_FCNTL > + - v1 What happens if you run an old program on a new kernel? Can you get unexpected action types? > + > + > +Ability types > +------------- > + > +The ability of a Landlock rule describes the available features (i.e. context > +fields and helpers). This is useful to abstract user-space privileges for > +Landlock rules, which may not need all abilities (e.g. debug). Only the > +minimal set of abilities should be used (e.g. disable debug once in > +production). > + > + > +.. kernel-doc:: include/uapi/linux/bpf.h > + :doc: landlock_subtype_ability > + > +.. flat-table:: Ability types availability > + > + * - flags > + - since > + - capability > + > + * - LANDLOCK_SUBTYPE_ABILITY_WRITE > + - v1 > + - CAP_SYS_ADMIN > + > + * - LANDLOCK_SUBTYPE_ABILITY_DEBUG > + - v1 > + - CAP_SYS_ADMIN > + What do "WRITE" and "DEBUG" mean in this context? I'm totally lost. Hmm. Reading below, "WRITE" seems to mean "modify state". Would that be accurate? > + > +Helper functions > +---------------- > + > +See *include/uapi/linux/bpf.h* for functions documentation. > + > +.. flat-table:: Generic functions availability > + > + > + * - bpf_get_current_comm > + - v1 > + - LANDLOCK_SUBTYPE_ABILITY_DEBUG What would this be used for? > + * - bpf_get_trace_printk > + - v1 > + - LANDLOCK_SUBTYPE_ABILITY_DEBUG > + This is different from the other DEBUG stuff in that it has side effects. I wonder if it should have a different flag. --Andy