Re: lsm naming dilemma. Re: [RFC v3 07/22] landlock: Handle file comparisons

From: MickaÃl SalaÃn
Date: Tue Sep 20 2016 - 12:59:29 EST

On 20/09/2016 03:10, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> I'm fine giving up the Checmate name. Landlock seems easy enough to
> Google. I haven't gotten a chance to look through the entire patchset
> yet, but it does seem like they are somewhat similar.

Excellent! I'm looking forward for your review.

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:25:10PM +0200, MickaÃl SalaÃn wrote:
>>>>> Agreed. With this RFC, the Checmate features (i.e. network helpers)
>>>>> should be able to sit on top of Landlock.
>>>> I think neither of them should be called fancy names for no technical reason.
>>>> We will have only one bpf based lsm. That's it and it doesn't
>>>> need an obscure name. Directory name can be security/bpf/..stuff.c
>>> I disagree on an LSM named "BPF". I first started with the "seccomp LSM"
>>> name (first RFC) but I later realized that it is confusing because
>>> seccomp is associated to its syscall and the underlying features. Same
>>> thing goes for BPF. It is also artificially hard to grep on a name too
>>> used in the kernel source tree.
>>> Making an association between the generic eBPF mechanism and a security
>>> centric approach (i.e. LSM) seems a bit reductive (for BPF). Moreover,
>>> the seccomp interface [1] can still be used.
>> agree with above.
>>> Landlock is a nice name to depict a sandbox as an enclave (i.e. a
>>> landlocked country/state). I want to keep this name, which is simple,
>>> express the goal of Landlock nicely and is comparable to other sandbox
>>> mechanisms as Seatbelt or Pledge.
>>> Landlock should not be confused with the underlying eBPF implementation.
>>> Landlock could use more than only eBPF in the future and eBPF could be
>>> used in other LSM as well.
>> there will not be two bpf based LSMs.
>> Therefore unless you can convince Sargun to give up his 'checmate' name,
>> nothing goes in.
>> The features you both need are 90% the same, so they must be done
>> as part of single LSM whatever you both agree to call it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature