Re: lsm naming dilemma. Re: [RFC v3 07/22] landlock: Handle file comparisons

[Sargun Dhillon]

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
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:25:10PM +0200, MickaÃl SalaÃn 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 one bpf based lsm. That's it and it doesn't
>> > need an obscure name. Directory name can be security/bpf/..stuff.c
>>
>> I disagree on an LSM named "BPF". I first started with the "seccomp LSM"
>> name (first RFC) but I later realized that it is confusing because
>> seccomp is associated to its syscall and the underlying features. Same
>> thing goes for BPF. It is also artificially hard to grep on a name too
>> used in the kernel source tree.
>> Making an association between the generic eBPF mechanism and a security
>> centric approach (i.e. LSM) seems a bit reductive (for BPF). Moreover,
>> the seccomp interface [1] can still be used.
>
> agree with above.
>
>> Landlock is a nice name to depict a sandbox as an enclave (i.e. a
>> landlocked country/state). I want to keep this name, which is simple,
>> express the goal of Landlock nicely and is comparable to other sandbox
>> mechanisms as Seatbelt or Pledge.
>> Landlock should not be confused with the underlying eBPF implementation.
>> Landlock could use more than only eBPF in the future and eBPF could be
>> used in other LSM as well.
>
> there will not be two bpf based LSMs.
> Therefore unless you can convince Sargun to give up his 'checmate' name,
> nothing goes in.
> The features you both need are 90% the same, so they must be done
> as part of single LSM whatever you both agree to call it.
>