Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:34:14 -0600
From:   "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
To:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= <mic@digikod.net>
Cc:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@ssi.gouv.fr>,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v28 07/12] landlock: Support filesystem access-control
Message-ID: <20210219153414.GA18061@mail.hallyn.com>
References: <20210202162710.657398-1-mic@digikod.net>
 <20210202162710.657398-8-mic@digikod.net>
 <20210210193624.GA29893@mail.hallyn.com>
 <aeba97b6-37cd-4870-0a40-3e7aa84ebd36@digikod.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <aeba97b6-37cd-4870-0a40-3e7aa84ebd36@digikod.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 09:17:25PM +0100, Micka?l Sala?n wrote:
> 
> On 10/02/2021 20:36, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 05:27:05PM +0100, Micka?l Sala?n wrote:
> >> From: Micka?l Sala?n <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
> >>
> >> Thanks to the Landlock objects and ruleset, it is possible to identify
> >> inodes according to a process's domain.  To enable an unprivileged
> > 
> > This throws me off a bit.  "identify inodes according to a process's domain".
> > What exactly does it mean?  "identify" how ?
> 
> A domain is a set of rules (i.e. layers of rulesets) enforced on a set
> of threads. Inodes are tagged per domain (i.e. not system-wide) and
> actions are restricted thanks to these tags, which form rules. It means
> that the created access-controls are scoped to a set of threads.

Thanks, that's helpful.  To me it would be much clearer if you used the word
'tagged' :

  Using the Landlock objects and ruleset, it is possible to tag inodes
  according to a process's domain.

> >> process to express a file hierarchy, it first needs to open a directory
> >> (or a file) and pass this file descriptor to the kernel through
> >> landlock_add_rule(2).  When checking if a file access request is
> >> allowed, we walk from the requested dentry to the real root, following
> >> the different mount layers.  The access to each "tagged" inodes are
> >> collected according to their rule layer level, and ANDed to create
> >> access to the requested file hierarchy.  This makes possible to identify
> >> a lot of files without tagging every inodes nor modifying the
> >> filesystem, while still following the view and understanding the user
> >> has from the filesystem.
> >>
> >> Add a new ARCH_EPHEMERAL_INODES for UML because it currently does not
> >> keep the same struct inodes for the same inodes whereas these inodes are
> >> in use.
> > 
> > -serge
> >