On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:50:42AM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi Mickaël, Günther, > > Sorry for the delay! > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 11:21:57AM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > CCing Alejandro > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 05:32:20PM +0100, Günther Noack wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:05:49PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > > > Extend the kernel support section with one subsection for build time > > > > configuration and another for boot time configuration. > > > > > > > > Extend the boot time subsection with a concrete example. > > > > > > > > Update the journalctl command to include the boot option. > > > > > > > > Cc: Günther Noack <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Changes since v1: > > > > * New patch, suggested by Kees Cook. > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > [...] > > > > > + > > > > + lsm=landlock,lockdown,yama,integrity,apparmor > > > > + > > > > +After a reboot, we can check that Landlock is up and running by > > > > looking at > > > > +kernel logs: > > > > + > > > > +.. code-block:: console > > > > + > > > > + # dmesg | grep landlock || journalctl -kb -g landlock > > > > + [ 0.000000] Command line: [...] > > > > lsm=landlock,lockdown,yama,integrity,apparmor > > > > + [ 0.000000] Kernel command line: [...] > > > > lsm=landlock,lockdown,yama,integrity,apparmor > > > > + [ 0.000000] LSM: initializing > > > > lsm=lockdown,capability,landlock,yama,integrity,apparmor > > > > + [ 0.000000] landlock: Up and running. > > > > + > > > > +Note that according to the built time kernel configuration, > > > > > > s/built time/build time/ > > > ^ > > > > OK > > Here, this should actually be "build-time" since it works as an > adjective.
Thanks Alex but this was already merged: https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/35e886e88c803920644c9d3abb45a9ecb7f1e761 Because I picked Günther's below suggestion, it should be good right? > > > > > > > > > It feels like the phrase "according to" could be slightly more specific > > > here. > > > > > > To paraphrase Alejandro Colomar, "Note that" is usually redundant. > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > > > > I'd suggest: > > > > > > The kernel may be configured at build time to always load the > > > ``lockdown`` and > > > ``capability`` LSMs. In that case, these LSMs will appear at the > > > beginning of > > > the ``LSM: initializing`` log line as well, even if they are not > > > configured in > > > the boot loader. > > LGTM > > > > > OK, I integrated your suggestion. I guess `capability` is not really > > considered an LSM but it would be too confusing and out of scope for an > > user documentation to explain that. > > > > > > > > > +``lockdown,capability,`` may always stay at the beginning of the ``LSM: > > > > +initializing lsm=`` list even if they are not configured with the > > > > bootloader, > > > > > > Nit: The man pages spell this in two words as "boot loader". > > > > OK, I'll use "boot loader" too. > > > > > > > > > > > > +which is OK. > > > > + > > > > +Network support > > > > +--------------- > > > > + > > > > To be able to explicitly allow TCP operations (e.g., adding a network > > > > rule with > > > > ``LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP``), the kernel must support TCP > > > > (``CONFIG_INET=y``). Otherwise, sys_landlock_add_rule() returns an > > > > > > > > base-commit: b4007fd27206c478a4b76e299bddf4a71787f520 > > > > -- > > > > 2.44.0 > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Günther Noack <[email protected]> > > > > Thanks! > > Reviewed-by: Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> > > Have a lovely day! > Alex > > -- > <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> > Looking for a remote C programming job at the moment.
