Re: [PATCH bpf-next v13 4/7] landlock: Add ptrace LSM hooks

[MickaÃl SalaÃn]

On 06/11/2019 11:15, KP Singh wrote:
> On 05-Nov 19:01, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> On 05/11/2019 18:18, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

[...]

>>>
>>> I think the only way bpf-based LSM can land is both landlock and KRSI
>>> developers work together on a design that solves all use cases.
>>
>> As I said in a previous cover letter [1], that would be great. I think
>> that the current Landlock bases (almost everything from this series
>> except the seccomp interface) should meet both needs, but I would like
>> to have the point of view of the KRSI developers.
> 
> As I mentioned we are willing to collaborate but the current landlock
> patches does not meet the needs for KRSI:
> 
> * One program type per use-case (eg. LANDLOCK_PROG_PTRACE) as opposed to
>   a single program type. This is something that KRSI proposed in it's
>   initial design [1] and the new common "eBPF + LSM" based approach
>   [2] would maintain as well.

As ask in my previous email [1], I don't see how KRSI would efficiently
deal with other LSM hooks with a unique program (attach) type.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/813cedde-8ed7-2d3b-883d-909efa978d41@xxxxxxxxxxx/

> 
> * Landlock chooses to have multiple LSM hooks per landlock hook which is
>   more restrictive. It's not easy to write precise MAC and Audit
>   policies for a privileged LSM based on this and this ends up bloating
>   the context that needs to be maintained and requires avoidable
>   boilerplate work in the kernel.

Why do you think it is more restrictive or it adds boilerplate work? How
does KRSI will deal with more complex hooks than execve-like with
multiple kernel objects?


> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series=410101
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20191106100655.GA18815@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> 
> - KP Singh