[PATCH v2] lsm: adds process attribute getter for Landlock

[Casey Schaufler]

On 6/1/2023 1:48 PM, Jeff Xu wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 6:26 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic at digikod.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> If I understand correctly:
>>>> 1> A new lsm syscall - lsm_get_pid_attr():  Landlock will return the
>>>> process's landlock sandbox status: true/false.
>>> There would have to be a new LSM_ATTR_ENFORCMENT to query.
>>> Each LSM could then report what, if any, value it choose to.
>>> I can't say whether SELinux would take advantage of this.
>>> I don't see that Smack would report this attribute.
>> I think such returned status for LSM_ATTR_ENFORCMENT query would make
>> sense, but the syscall could also return -EPERM and other error codes.
>>
>>
>>>> Is this a right fit for SELinux to also return the process's enforcing
>>>> mode ? such as enforcing/permissive.
>> Paul could answer that, but I think it would be simpler to have two
>> different queries, something like LSM_ATTR_ENFORCMENT and
>> LSM_ATTR_PERMISSIVE queries.
>>
> Hi Paul, what do you think ? Could SELinux have something like this.

Not Paul, but answering anyway - No, those are system wide attributes, not
process (task) attributes. You want some other syscall, say lsm_get_system_attr()
for those.

>
> Thanks!
> -Jeff