From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 05/11] seccomp,landlock: Enforce Landlock
 programs per process hierarchy
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:36:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CALCETrVo61UOGHJ6AgrLN_AyzUYuz-JRgET4d6ut-ErwUg_vZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180227004121.3633-1-mic@digikod.net> <20180227004121.3633-6-mic@digikod.net>
 <20180227020856.teq4hobw3zwussu2@ast-mbp> <CALCETrVKRYnGJ9XNW-x7eHdMt+eGP90j7cAed-KTzp1KT_kMeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180227045458.wjrbbsxf3po656du@ast-mbp> <CALCETrXZ=xJEd53RhA67_VDoAKBWgUeyBi9XN7ibrE7V6nzk5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180227053255.a7ua24kjd6tvei2a@ast-mbp> <CALCETrUqc0wbig4ntQe9KNS-fOgYOpD+MPodXYruCRyJ7bhagA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b9579dae-625e-cd91-0656-821a8d1f2893@schaufler-ca.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <b9579dae-625e-cd91-0656-821a8d1f2893@schaufler-ca.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?B?TWlja2HDq2wgU2FsYcO8bg==?= <mic@digikod.net>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/2018 8:39 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
>> <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> 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.
>
>

What do you mean by "infrastructure blob management"?