On 22/02/2017 06:21, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This documentation can be built with the Sphinx framework.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: James Morris <james.l.morris@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> +
>> +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?
arg2 is a generic name. Its meaning depends on the Landlock event, here
it is an action bitfield (FS event).
>
> Can you specify what the return value means? Are 0 and 1 the only
> choices? Would "KILL" be useful? How about "COREDUMP"?
This is explained thereafter and in the kernel Q&A section. I need to
briefly introduce that here.
>
>> +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?
The old flags will still make sense, the new ones should be ignored by
the rule.
>
>> +
>> +
>> +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?
That is correct, but handling a state in a safe way imply more than only
the ability to "write" outside bpfland (e.g. sequential execution).
>
>> +
>> +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?
To get more information about the process which trigger an action?
>
>> + * - 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.
I think the debug flag is a clear warning to not ship a rule using this
ability. Maybe a sub-flag LANDLOCK_SUBTYPE_ABILITY_DEBUG_PRINT would fit
here?
Mickaël
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
