On 04/10/2016 00:56, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>
>> On 15/09/2016 11:19, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as
the
ability to check syscall
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>
> On 15/09/2016 11:19, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as
>>> the
>>> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic security
On Tue 2016-09-20 19:08:23, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>
> On 15/09/2016 11:19, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as
> >> the
> >> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic
> >> security
> >>
On 15/09/2016 11:19, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as the
>> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic security
>> policies. The goal of this new stackable Linux Security Module (LSM) called
>>
Hi!
> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as the
> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic security
> policies. The goal of this new stackable Linux Security Module (LSM) called
> Landlock is to allow any process, including
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>
> On 30/08/2016 18:06, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as
>>> the
On 30/08/2016 18:06, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as the
>> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic security
>>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as the
> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic security
> policies. The goal of this new stackable Linux Security
Cc Tejun and the cgroups ML.
On 27/08/2016 17:10, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On 27/08/2016 09:40, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>>
>>> # Sandbox example with conditional access control depending on cgroup
>>>
>>> $ mkdir
On 27/08/2016 09:40, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as the
>> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic security
>>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as the
> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic security
> policies. The goal of this new stackable Linux Security
On 25/08/2016 13:05, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as the
>> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic security
>>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This series is a proof of concept to fill some missing part of seccomp as the
> ability to check syscall argument pointers or creating more dynamic security
> policies. The goal of this new stackable Linux Security
13 matches
Mail list logo