> On Aug 20, 2024, at 2:11 PM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 1:43 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Aug 20, 2024, at 5:45 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > >>> What about adding BPF hooks to Landlock? User space could create >>> Landlock sandboxes that would delegate the denials to a BPF program, >>> which could then also allow such access, but without directly handling >>> nor reimplementing filesystem path walks. The Landlock user space ABI >>> changes would mainly be a new landlock_ruleset_attr field to explicitly >>> ask for a (system-wide) BPF program to handle access requests if no >>> Landlock rule allow them. We could also tie a BPF data (i.e. blob) to >>> Landlock domains for consistent sandbox management. One of the >>> advantage of this approach is to only run related BPF programs if the >>> sandbox policy would deny the request. Another advantage would be to >>> leverage the Landlock user space interface to let any program partially >>> define and extend their security policy. >> >> Given there is BPF LSM, I have never thought about adding BPF hooks to >> Landlock or other LSMs. I personally would prefer to have a common API >> to walk the path, maybe something like vma_iterator. But I need to read >> more code to understand whether this makes sense? > > Just so there isn't any confusion, I want to make sure that everyone > is clear that "adding BPF hooks to Landlock" should mean "add a new > Landlock specific BPF hook inside Landlock" and not "reuse existing > BPF LSM hooks inside Landlock". I think we are on the same page. My understanding of Mickaël's idea is to add some brand new hooks to Landlock code, so that Landlock can use BPF program to make some decisions. Thanks, Song
