Re: [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing (cgroup delegation)

["Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1324 bytes --]

Cc Tejun and the cgroups ML.

On 27/08/2016 17:10, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On 27/08/2016 09:40, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> # Sandbox example with conditional access control depending on cgroup
>>>
>>>   $ mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/sandboxed
>>>   $ ls /home
>>>   user1
>>>   $ LANDLOCK_CGROUPS='/sys/fs/cgroup/sandboxed' \
>>>       LANDLOCK_ALLOWED='/bin:/lib:/usr:/tmp:/proc/self/fd/0' \
>>>       ./sandbox /bin/sh -i
>>>   $ ls /home
>>>   user1
>>>   $ echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/sandboxed/cgroup.procs
>>>   $ ls /home
>>>   ls: cannot open directory '/home': Permission denied
>>>
>>
>> Something occurs to me that isn't strictly relevant to landlock but
>> may be relevant to unprivileged cgroups: can you cause trouble by
>> setting up a nastily-configured cgroup and running a setuid program in
>> it?
>>
> 
> I hope not… But the use of cgroups should not be mandatory for Landlock.
> 

In a previous email:

On 26/08/2016 17:50, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I haven't looked in detail but in general I'm not too excited about
> layering security mechanism on top of cgroup.  Maybe it makes some
> sense when security domain coincides with resource domains but at any
> rate please keep me in the loop.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]