[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next v8 05/11] seccomp,landlock: Enforce Landlock programs per process hierarchy
On 2/27/2018 8:39 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
> <> wrote:
>> [ Snip ]
> An earlier version of the patch set used the seccomp filter chain.
> Mickaël, what exactly was wrong with that approach other than that the
> seccomp() syscall was awkward for you to use? You could add a
> seccomp_add_landlock_rule() syscall if you needed to.
> As a side comment, why is this an LSM at all, let alone a non-stacking
> LSM? It would make a lot more sense to me to make Landlock depend on
> having LSMs configured in but to call the landlock hooks directly from
> the security_xyz() hooks.

Please, no. It is my serious intention to have at least the
infrastructure blob management in within a release or two, and
I think that's all Landlock needs. The security_xyz() hooks are
sufficiently hackish as it is without unnecessarily adding more
special cases.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-27 18:32    [W:0.164 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site