Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 13:20:24 +0200 From: Florian Ermisch <florian.ermisch@alumni.tu-berlin.de> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org,Domagoj Stolfa <domagoj.stolfa@gmail.com> Subject: Re: The OpenBSD pledge Message-ID: <1F5A9247-7C98-483C-A4BD-4A3D54208B3D@alumni.tu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <20160611103834.GA75085@lyxys.ka.sub.org> References: <CABRKQr4U6-QKjcxWK_zV9TYBq-FFzuo4QxyRZ5Dcf9KxLjrypQ@mail.gmail.com> <20160611103834.GA75085@lyxys.ka.sub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 11. Juni 2016 12:38:34 MESZ, schrieb Wolfgang Zenker <wolfgang@lyxys.ka.sub.org>: > Hi, > > * Domagoj Stolfa <domagoj.stolfa@gmail.com> [160611 02:47]: > > Has there been discussion on the OpenBSD's pledge going into the > FreeBSD > > kernel as an atomic syscall or as a MAC plugin? > > I don't remember any discussions about this, but looking at OpenBSDs > plege(2) manpage, isn't this something going in the same direction > as the capsicum(4) framework, just with a much more simplistic > interface? > > Wolfgang > One could argue it's a much easier to use interface: "453 out of 707 base system binaries were adapted to use pledge [in 5.9]" [1]. The "Capsicum for FreeBSD" page at can.ac.uk lists 14 binaries in FreeBSD's base [2]. It might be possible to put a pledge compatible layer on top of capsicum to reuse OpenBSD's patches for ports and shared code in base but I know way too less about both mechanisms to even make an educated guess. Regards, Florian [1]: http://www.openbsd.org/59.html [2]: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/capsicum/freebsd.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1F5A9247-7C98-483C-A4BD-4A3D54208B3D>