Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 00/11] Landlock LSM: Toward unprivileged sandboxing

[MickaÃl SalaÃn]

On 06/03/2018 23:46, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:33:17PM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> Suppose I'm writing a container manager.  I want to run "mount" in the
>>>> container, but I don't want to allow moun() in general and I want to
>>>> emulate certain mount() actions.  I can write a filter that catches
>>>> mount using seccomp and calls out to the container manager for help.
>>>> This isn't theoretical -- Tycho wants *exactly* this use case to be
>>>> supported.
>>>
>>> Well, I think this use case should be handled with something like
>>> LD_PRELOAD and a helper library. FYI, I did something like this:
>>> https://github.com/stemjail/stemshim
>>
>> I doubt that will work for containers.  Containers that use user
>> namespaces and, for example, setuid programs aren't going to honor
>> LD_PRELOAD.
> 
> Or anything that calls syscalls directly, like go programs.

That's why the vDSO-like approach. Enforcing an access control is not
the issue here, patching a buggy userland (without patching its code) is
the issue isn't it?

As far as I remember, the main problem is to handle file descriptors
while "emulating" the kernel behavior. This can be done with a "shim"
code mapped in every processes. Chrome used something like this (in a
previous sandbox mechanism) as a kind of emulation (with the current
seccomp-bpf ). I think it should be doable to replace the (userland)
emulation code with an IPC wrapper receiving file descriptors through
UNIX socket.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature