Re: [RFC 0/4] Landlock: ioctl support

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

 




On 24/05/2023 23:43, Jeff Xu wrote:
Sorry for the late reply.

(Looking in the direction of Jeff Xu, who has inquired about Landlock
for Chromium in the past -- do you happen to know in which ways you'd
want to restrict ioctls, if you have that need? :))


Regarding this patch, here is some feedback from ChromeOS:
  - In the short term: we are looking to integrate Landlock into our
sandboxer, so the ability to restrict to a specific device is huge.
- Fundamentally though, in the effort of bringing process expected
behaviour closest to allowed behaviour, the ability to speak of
ioctl() path access in Landlock would be huge -- at least we can
continue to enumerate in policy what processes are allowed to do, even
if we still lack the ability to restrict individual ioctl commands for
a specific device node.

Thanks for the feedback!


Regarding medium term:
My thoughts are, from software architecture point of view, it would be
nice to think in planes: i.e. Data plane / Control plane/ Signaling
Plane/Normal User Plane/Privileged User Plane. Let the application
define its planes, and assign operations to them. Landlock provides
data structure and syscall to construct the planes.

I'm not sure to follow this plane thing. Could you give examples for these planes applied to Landlock?



However, one thing I'm not sure is the third arg from ioctl:
int ioctl(int fd, unsigned long request, ...);
Is it possible for the driver to use the same request id, then put
whatever into the third arg ? how to deal with that effectively ?

I'm not sure about the value of all the arguments (except the command one) vs. the complexity to filter them, but we could discuss that when we'll reach this step.


For real world user cases, Dmitry Torokhov (added to list) can help.

Yes please!


PS: There is also lwn article about SELinux implementation of ioctl: [1]
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/428140/

Thanks for the pointer, this shows how complex this IOCTL access control is. For Landlock, I'd like to provide the minimal required features to enable user space to define their own rules, which means to let user space (and especially libraries) to identify useful or potentially harmful IOCTLs.


Thanks!
-Jeff Xu



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux