On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Add eBPF functions to compare file system access with a Landlock file
> system handle:
> * bpf_landlock_cmp_fs_prop_with_struct_file(prop, map, map_op, file)
> This function allows to compare the dentry, inode, device or mount
> point o
On 20/09/2016 03:10, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> I'm fine giving up the Checmate name. Landlock seems easy enough to
> Google. I haven't gotten a chance to look through the entire patchset
> yet, but it does seem like they are somewhat similar.
Excellent! I'm looking forward for your review.
>
> O
I'm fine giving up the Checmate name. Landlock seems easy enough to
Google. I haven't gotten a chance to look through the entire patchset
yet, but it does seem like they are somewhat similar.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:25:10PM +0200, Mi
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:25:10PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >> Agreed. With this RFC, the Checmate features (i.e. network helpers)
> >> should be able to sit on top of Landlock.
> >
> > I think neither of them should be called fancy names for no technical
> > reason.
> > We will have only o
On 15/09/2016 01:24, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:22AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>>
>>> I would suggest for the next RFC to do minimal 7 patches up to this point
>>> with simple example that demonstrates the use case.
>>> I would avoid all unpriv stuff and all of s
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:22AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest for the next RFC to do minimal 7 patches up to this point
> > with simple example that demonstrates the use case.
> > I would avoid all unpriv stuff and all of seccomp for the next RFC as well,
> > otherwise I
On 14/09/2016 23:06, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:24:00AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> Add eBPF functions to compare file system access with a Landlock file
>> system handle:
>> * bpf_landlock_cmp_fs_prop_with_struct_file(prop, map, map_op, file)
>> This function al
On 14/09/2016 21:07, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:24:00AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> Add eBPF functions to compare file system access with a Landlock file
>> system handle:
>> * bpf_landlock_cmp_fs_prop_with_struct_file(prop, map, map_op, file)
>> This function allows to co
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:24:00AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Add eBPF functions to compare file system access with a Landlock file
> system handle:
> * bpf_landlock_cmp_fs_prop_with_struct_file(prop, map, map_op, file)
> This function allows to compare the dentry, inode, device or mount
>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:24:00AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Add eBPF functions to compare file system access with a Landlock file
> system handle:
> * bpf_landlock_cmp_fs_prop_with_struct_file(prop, map, map_op, file)
> This function allows to compare the dentry, inode, device or mount
>
Add eBPF functions to compare file system access with a Landlock file
system handle:
* bpf_landlock_cmp_fs_prop_with_struct_file(prop, map, map_op, file)
This function allows to compare the dentry, inode, device or mount
point of the currently accessed file, with a reference handle.
* bpf_landl
11 matches
Mail list logo
