Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 08/11] landlock: Add ptrace restrictions
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date: 2018-02-28 00:09:37
Also in:
linux-api, linux-security-module, netdev
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date: 2018-02-28 00:09:37
Also in:
linux-api, linux-security-module, netdev
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Mickaël Salaün [off-list ref] wrote:
On 28/02/2018 00:23, Andy Lutomirski wrote:quoted
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:02 PM, Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Mickaël Salaün [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
I think you're wrong here. Any sane container trying to use Landlock like this would also create a PID namespace. Problem solved. I still think you should drop this patch.Containers is one use case, another is build-in sandboxing (e.g. for web browser…) and another one is for sandbox managers (e.g. Firejail, Bubblewrap, Flatpack…). In some of these use cases, especially from a developer point of view, you may want/need to debug your applications (without requiring to be root). For nested Landlock access-controls (e.g. container + user session + web browser), it may not be allowed to create a PID namespace, but you still want to have a meaningful access-control.
The consideration should be exactly the same as for normal seccomp. If I'm in a container (using PID namespaces + seccomp) and a run a web browser, I can debug the browser. If there's a real use case for adding this type of automatic ptrace protection, then by all means, let's add it as a general seccomp feature.