On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 14/09/2016 20:43, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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. -Kees -- Kees Cook Nexus Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
