Re: Landstrip
Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> Mon, 8 Jun 2026 09:24:41 +0300
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.landlock |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 05:28:39AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2026 at 03:19:09PM -0400, Justin Suess wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 04:42:51AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > I played with an idea could Landlock LSM be used to do conceptually a > > > better fit sandbox for programs such as Anthropic Sandbox Runtime [1]. > > > > > > After some missteps at first I got it pulled together quite well: > > > > > > https://crates.io/crates/landstrip > > > > > > To see it in action I also have a fork of pi-hashline-readmap plugin, > > > which was a cherry-picked test case I wanted to try out given it already > > > hooks the bash tool command for compressed output. > > > > > > I just thought that this might interest some as Landlock is not really > > > over-used kernel feature in "application sense". > > > > > > This is a more lower barrier and more failure tolerant to deploy than > > > Bubblewrap based container for this use and purpose in my opinion > > > at least. > > > > > Very cool! Landlock is great for this usecase of application driven > > sandboxing. > > > > (just a quick note, the linux-security-module/linux-integrity > > mailing lists mostly for kernel development patches, the > > landlock.lists.linux.dev list is more for > > userspace Landlock topics like this. so I removed the cc for > > linux-security-module/linux-integrity and added that list) > > > > I notice there is a seccomp policy for unix sockets in this application. > > Although it might not be in your kernel yet, support for sandboxing > > named unix sockets with Landlock was recently merged. :) > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/[email protected]/ > > Thanks for the pointer. My focus has been more in the wiring than inner > shenanigans but soon might be a good time to revisit :-) > > I have also Seatbelt FFI and Windows AppContainer profiles are whatever > they call them through Win32 API. I migrated to direct syscalls with Landlock in order to keep in faster phase. I'll implement ACCESS_FS_RESOLVE_UNIX support, and run-time detection to know whether to fall back to a seccomp policy (which is needed still few years to come). One LSM I'm not really familiar of and it bothers me a bit is the eBPF LSM. I'm not exactly sure would it do anything useful/valuable for me in this project. And I think Anthropic's app security policy is actually quite nice and practical. I plan to use this myself when I do find+xargs type of risky operations :-) It's great with scripts, which kind of makes sense. JSON is quite horrible tho so without breaking backwards compatibility I'll add --format json|yml. In yml-version there won't be bucket lists for each rule. Instead it will have singular "allowRead" etc. statements. This is more to use cases where I find it useful :-) BR, Jarkko