From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 05/11] seccomp,landlock: Enforce Landlock
 programs per process hierarchy
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:30:35 -0800
Message-ID: <b9579dae-625e-cd91-0656-821a8d1f2893@schaufler-ca.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>
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: <CALCETrUqc0wbig4ntQe9KNS-fOgYOpD+MPodXYruCRyJ7bhagA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Micka=c3=abl_Sala=c3=bcn?= <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>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>Kernel Hardening <ker>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

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.