From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 02/10] landlock: Add ruleset and domain management Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 13:09:32 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: References: <20200511192156.1618284-1-mic@digikod.net> <20200511192156.1618284-3-mic@digikod.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="1665246916-408680353-1589425772=:30052" Return-path: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: In-Reply-To: <20200511192156.1618284-3-mic@digikod.net> To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Andy Lutomirski , Arnd Bergmann , Casey Schaufler , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Kees Cook , Michael Kerrisk , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= , "Serge E . Hallyn" , Shuah Khan , Vincent Dagonneau , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1665246916-408680353-1589425772=:30052 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 11 May 2020, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > + * .. warning:: > + * > + * It is currently not possible to restrict some file-related actions > + * accessible through these syscall families: :manpage:`chdir(2)`, > + * :manpage:`truncate(2)`, :manpage:`stat(2)`, :manpage:`flock(2)`, > + * :manpage:`chmod(2)`, :manpage:`chown(2)`, :manpage:`setxattr(2)`, > + * :manpage:`ioctl(2)`, :manpage:`fcntl(2)`. > + * Future Landlock evolutions will enable to restrict them. I have to wonder how useful Landlock will be without more coverage per the above. It would be helpful if you could outline a threat model for this initial version, so people can get an idea of what kind of useful protection may be gained from it. Are there any distros or other major users who are planning on enabling or at least investigating Landlock? Do you have any examples of a practical application of this scheme? -- James Morris --1665246916-408680353-1589425772=:30052-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:58830 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725895AbgENDKE (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2020 23:10:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 13:09:32 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 02/10] landlock: Add ruleset and domain management In-Reply-To: <20200511192156.1618284-3-mic@digikod.net> Message-ID: References: <20200511192156.1618284-1-mic@digikod.net> <20200511192156.1618284-3-mic@digikod.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="1665246916-408680353-1589425772=:30052" Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Andy Lutomirski , Arnd Bergmann , Casey Schaufler , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Kees Cook , Michael Kerrisk , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= , "Serge E . Hallyn" , Shuah Khan , Vincent Dagonneau , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Message-ID: <20200514030932.jctph-I_OFba2wORMzrKSjwkjEPY_BCuG7MMxTS73XI@z> This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1665246916-408680353-1589425772=:30052 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 11 May 2020, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > + * .. warning:: > + * > + * It is currently not possible to restrict some file-related actions > + * accessible through these syscall families: :manpage:`chdir(2)`, > + * :manpage:`truncate(2)`, :manpage:`stat(2)`, :manpage:`flock(2)`, > + * :manpage:`chmod(2)`, :manpage:`chown(2)`, :manpage:`setxattr(2)`, > + * :manpage:`ioctl(2)`, :manpage:`fcntl(2)`. > + * Future Landlock evolutions will enable to restrict them. I have to wonder how useful Landlock will be without more coverage per the above. It would be helpful if you could outline a threat model for this initial version, so people can get an idea of what kind of useful protection may be gained from it. Are there any distros or other major users who are planning on enabling or at least investigating Landlock? Do you have any examples of a practical application of this scheme? -- James Morris --1665246916-408680353-1589425772=:30052--