Conversation

This highlights a few different problems, the fragile and unmaintainable nature of handwritten syscall policies, and the shitshow that is the Linux 64-bit time_t/y2k38 migration..
Quote Tweet
> This situation highlights a problem with seccomp() in general: it is difficult to write robust policies at that level of detail, and the resulting policies tend to be brittle in the best of times. lwn.net/SubscriberLink
1
8
Replying to
I think the main issue is the fragmented OS development model. It doesn't work for privacy and security since it blocks progress crossing project boundaries. There's a massive lack of overall work on whole system privacy and security. It cannot be achieved within the silos.
1
1
It's also a completely unrealistic approach. It's far more realistic to make a standard sandbox and force all applications outside of the base system to target it. It's great if applications go out of their way to do finer grained sandboxing but it's an unrealistic baseline.
1
I see lots of applications using seccomp-bpf simply because they can and it's good marketing but with no real attempt at making a meaningful sandbox with it or using it to reinforce an existing sandbox. They do it because they can and due to the OS development model it's fragile.
1
It makes much more sense to expose a very high-level API to third party applications for fine-grained sandboxing. They should be targeted at standard app sandboxes in the first place, but having each reinvent fine-grained sandboxing and generally do it wrong (like this) is silly.
1
As an example, Android provides isolatedProcess for fine-grained sandboxing, which simply the semantic layer of the Chromium sandbox: developer.android.com/guide/topics/m It's what Chromium uses on Android rather than namespaces. As with the main app sandbox, the OS deals with the details.
1
1
Show replies