On 20/09/2016 06:37, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 09:41:33PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> On 15/09/2016 06:48, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:38:16PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>>> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:08:57PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>>>>> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:27:08PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> This RFC handle both cgroup and seccomp approaches in a similar 
>>>>>>>>>>> way. I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't see why building on top of cgroup v2 is a problem. Is there
>>>>>>>>>>> security issues with delegation?
>>>>>>>>>> What I mean is: cgroup v2 delegation has a functionality problem.
>>>>>>>>>> Tejun says [1]:
>>>>>>>>>> We haven't had to face this decision because cgroup has never 
>>>>>>>>>> properly
>>>>>>>>>> supported delegating to applications and the in-use setups where this
>>>>>>>>>> happens are custom configurations where there is no boundary between
>>>>>>>>>> system and applications and adhoc trial-and-error is good enough a 
>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>> to find a working solution.  That wiggle room goes away once we
>>>>>>>>>> officially open this up to individual applications.
>>>>>>>>>> Unless and until that changes, I think that landlock should stay away
>>>>>>>>>> from cgroups.  Others could reasonably disagree with me.
>>>>>>>>> Ours and Sargun's use cases for cgroup+lsm+bpf is not for security
>>>>>>>>> and not for sandboxing. So the above doesn't matter in such contexts.
>>>>>>>>> lsm hooks + cgroups provide convenient scope and existing entry 
>>>>>>>>> points.
>>>>>>>>> Please see checmate examples how it's used.
>>>>>>>> To be clear: I'm not arguing at all that there shouldn't be
>>>>>>>> bpf+lsm+cgroup integration.  I'm arguing that the unprivileged
>>>>>>>> landlock interface shouldn't expose any cgroup integration, at least
>>>>>>>> until the cgroup situation settles down a lot.
>>>>>>> ahh. yes. we're perfectly in agreement here.
>>>>>>> I'm suggesting that the next RFC shouldn't include unpriv
>>>>>>> and seccomp at all. Once bpf+lsm+cgroup is merged, we can
>>>>>>> argue about unpriv with cgroups and even unpriv as a whole,
>>>>>>> since it's not a given. Seccomp integration is also questionable.
>>>>>>> I'd rather not have seccomp as a gate keeper for this lsm.
>>>>>>> lsm and seccomp are orthogonal hook points. Syscalls and lsm hooks
>>>>>>> don't have one to one relationship, so mixing them up is only
>>>>>>> asking for trouble further down the road.
>>>>>>> If we really need to carry some information from seccomp to lsm+bpf,
>>>>>>> it's easier to add eBPF support to seccomp and let bpf side deal
>>>>>>> with passing whatever information.
>>>>>> As an argument for keeping seccomp (or an extended seccomp) as the
>>>>>> interface for an unprivileged bpf+lsm: seccomp already checks off most
>>>>>> of the boxes for safely letting unprivileged programs sandbox
>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>> you mean the attach part of seccomp syscall that deals with no_new_priv?
>>>>> sure, that's reusable.
>>>>>> Furthermore, to the extent that there are use cases for
>>>>>> unprivileged bpf+lsm that *aren't* expressible within the seccomp
>>>>>> hierarchy, I suspect that syscall filters have exactly the same
>>>>>> problem and that we should fix seccomp to cover it.
>>>>> not sure what you mean by 'seccomp hierarchy'. The normal process
>>>>> hierarchy ?
>>>> Kind of.  I mean the filter layers that are inherited across fork(),
>>>> the TSYNC mechanism, etc.
>>>>> imo the main deficiency of secccomp is inability to look into arguments.
>>>>> One can argue that it's a blessing, since composite args
>>>>> are not yet copied into the kernel memory.
>>>>> But in a lot of cases the seccomp arguments are FDs pointing
>>>>> to kernel objects and if programs could examine those objects
>>>>> the sandboxing scope would be more precise.
>>>>> lsm+bpf solves that part and I'd still argue that it's
>>>>> orthogonal to seccomp's pass/reject flow.
>>>>> I mean if seccomp says 'ok' the syscall should continue executing
>>>>> as normal and whatever LSM hooks were triggered by it may have
>>>>> their own lsm+bpf verdicts.
>>>> I agree with all of this...
>>>>> Furthermore in the process hierarchy different children
>>>>> should be able to set their own lsm+bpf filters that are not
>>>>> related to parallel seccomp+bpf hierarchy of programs.
>>>>> seccomp syscall can be an interface to attach programs
>>>>> to lsm hooks, but nothing more than that.
>>>> I'm not sure what you mean.  I mean that, logically, I think we should
>>>> be able to do:
>>>> seccomp(attach a syscall filter);
>>>> fork();
>>>> child does seccomp(attach some lsm filters);
>>>> I think that they *should* be related to the seccomp+bpf hierarchy of
>>>> programs in that they are entries in the same logical list of filter
>>>> layers installed.  Some of those layers can be syscall filters and
>>>> some of the layers can be lsm filters.  If we subsequently add a way
>>>> to attach a removable seccomp filter or a way to attach a seccomp
>>>> filter that logs failures to some fd watched by an outside monitor, I
>>>> think that should work for lsm, too, with more or less the same
>>>> interface.
>>>> If we need a way for a sandbox manager to opt different children into
>>>> different subsets of fancy filters, then I think that syscall filters
>>>> and lsm filters should use the same mechanism.
>>>> I think we might be on the same page here and just saying it different 
>>>> ways.
>>> Sounds like it :)
>>> All of the above makes sense to me.
>>> The 'orthogonal' part is that the user should be able to use
>>> this seccomp-managed hierarchy without actually enabling
>>> TIF_SECCOMP for the task and syscalls should still go through
>>> fast path and all the way till lsm hooks as normal.
>>> I don't want to pay _any_ performance penalty for this feature
>>> for lsm hooks (and all syscalls) that don't have bpf programs attached.
>> Yes, it seems that we are all on the same page here, and that match this
>> RFC implementation. So, using the seccomp(2) *interface* to attach
>> Landlock programs to a process hierarchy is still on track. :)
> So, I'm catching up on this after a little while away. I really like the 
> simplicity of the approach Daniel took with his patches. I began to have 
> difficulty reading your patchset once you got into using seccomp + 
> unprivileged 
> mode. I would love to see a separate patchset that only have the verifier, and
> lsm hook changes. Do you think you could decompose your patchset into an MVP?

OK, I'll try to split the common parts from the seccomp part, but there
is already a dedicated patch for the LSM hooks [06/22].

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to