Re: [PATCH bpf-next v10 10/10] landlock: Add user and kernel documentation for Landlock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/1/19 10:03 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>> +Ptrace restrictions
>>> +-------------------
>>> +
>>> +A landlocked process has less privileges than a non-landlocked process and must
>>> +then be subject to additional restrictions when manipulating another process.
>>> +To be allowed to use :manpage:`ptrace(2)` and related syscalls on a target
>>> +process, a landlocked process must have a subset of the target process programs.
>>             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Maybe that last statement is correct, but it seems to me that it is missing something.
> What about this:
> 
> To be allowed to trace a process (using :manpage:`ptrace(2)`), a
> landlocked tracer process must only be constrained by a subset (possibly
> empty) of the Landlock programs which are also applied to the tracee.
> This ensure that the tracer has less or the same constraints than the

       ensures

> tracee, hence protecting against privilege escalation.

Yes, better.  Thanks.


-- 
~Randy



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux