[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 18:56:45 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Daniel Borkmann
<daniel@...earbox.net>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>, David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 00/18] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing
On 26/10/2016 16:52, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 08:56:36AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> The loaded Landlock eBPF programs can be triggered by a seccomp filter
>> returning RET_LANDLOCK. In addition, a cookie (16-bit value) can be passed from
>> a seccomp filter to eBPF programs. This allow flexible security policies
>> between seccomp and Landlock.
>
> Is this still up to date, or was that removed in v3?
>
I forgot to remove this part. In this v4 series, as describe in the
(small) patch 11/18, a Landlock rule cannot be triggered by a seccomp
filter. So there is no more RET_LANDLOCK nor cookie.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
