From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.128.52 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792999357; b=EyVDhdXAttqF8RDTFCf11aAftD5ogTJ3x7OJIKSlfPvXreC1K4gehcGwbTuOSuU+Mt5B jAWt16xv6RWaqrba+ucRg5DbO5v6LOjz8CMP04C2zqvxDVMuHNBgTRnNLjJACOsqyXw2t 8Bd0+mGfzp/KlowtxciOQqgHINrWO2qROqRFvxD30eQkEgmAwqcG0RSBrIzMpVmVZrWiy 7nGPxhKluFFPcqkaKTkHRITaZQCbYDQ11l5VmTnFW/gdehJllwS2g6N4gavyUbsp+S5dn 1mHwTK60a22JNRfQwwGy1d7UKoYLFfe3rQOYX5jMUhUhYPTEs9e6Yb4i9Xm/acMQ7mQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792999357; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:X-Google-DKIM-Signature: X-Forwarded-Encrypted:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Gm-Gg:X-Received:Received: Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:Content-Transfer-Encoding: In-Reply-To; bh=HJZtmQZPEueeCiwg4sV5mAgkGS8BZr7Xf8cF5fmkfCA=; b=yasrs6/vojpcV1rYgaWGyDfaX2bsc/mTP0zQ69nEXGuA8J306SiRpKkVKIBDxR7QzJLw L+pP5lJ0qGE5cbPHNlg/6GOEvM6xYJO6ObNVJ5Q5c6+itvRIquODyn2beps3q3QxuCb8a FhYU7RvfnC4/jsm9Y6bb/ire2v3H/Nc/taPQ/Xn6tVKJQA4X2KkgQyreQXH453jTqQwd8 +jZlcLlQfIOyfISIY6ERGSBea265McVs2ltdRAGOp0NVBAOLwVSj/6zSiJeChw6zvmusM 6ivv20nFxl/0nanvT6jVTWAnpet3M3EUzzwdAOJWNYyC/fkvXzJzo+HgQ1b6L8H3GMg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20251104 header.b=PHi3VkvJ; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.128.52 Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com (mail-wm1-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C20E606A31A for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:22:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 6C20E606A31A Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20251104 header.b=PHi3VkvJ Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a2084d62cdso20805615e9.1 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 00:22:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1792999356; x=1793604156; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=HJZtmQZPEueeCiwg4sV5mAgkGS8BZr7Xf8cF5fmkfCA=; b=PHi3VkvJzLMPj8R1/whCS+guMKXQNQ7sbyf7+jCM6ssCp7yNs/alG9/dqGX4U5tT65 wpQParAJvvCWuz//hHzfbPXsJsUAVnpk0zNv1XfIzboShrlBl1BPzm5UWfAE9apaxDPa /Bgt0+1z58inytsxoTvxOauRUasdefC8hCtKehHRa4ShYQoFHjfULm1ui6hcE1W+vYfO 10v9oNYrrmzypnfRNG413fv+YgZl9TyrZ1vXorxqljIgKzr9ZREqNqOLdfr2YQ2Sup3k 6UOiH3JPhP/D/02GBs7YDgxQEDEkOhFbB/zNGQ7Gg0tNB0wIjXBkcLeO6oqHvPv3njjC uHuQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1792999356; x=1793604156; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to:content-type; bh=HJZtmQZPEueeCiwg4sV5mAgkGS8BZr7Xf8cF5fmkfCA=; b=EdtJ7ojm+P6hdYBweFhCEl6qo7kMKCqKhVCGmc51SAXNAI7s3Vg6LQYKDmCJshpuA6 477QahMlbjPzml3+ZRYZYOK/lKPvxuJ8jk0fXXx8oxssx+f0udT2L8iLFLPY4aJPjmH7 q31lacSNVSzESlmn8slcqUr1SrbxkRIueyWAZNiU+k4ixfTT0KO9Q1VANWa0yYRPWNYb G45L+CuH8Rd1Em5Y65mvOC60qy0nmgQSBdssPvdrxNU1mHPXckecy0uQGPABOww2uHiN HRRaG8jMK6sgVhB0SrbXJzEcKyJ9VFj9glmt9U2oJl6MCoHTKWsK1oLmYGYCXcIz+wVd bZrQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBx5Zn+x3YzGtFPlXl0gBSn9373romdqcdRc+B3CqjIe0ugSqBtGtiV7FhgcOX7LwC9ZUp6AOTDau9U=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYL23MArlyEWVjTq0SqiSOZdjqFg1y31SxTVlQWDNPLO+yg5oyma 7bNif9h729gDZu4xbQiTv+hXnqGkf3YIuxOJsYGxRO+BRjwi2oXAKFRq X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou39IgsPzDktDqhorK/id9ANgIEZ1L7JiDqGV2mOpxNASyIH8+w+UTJbKWCLDlO iQnvxN9VGIJEGFOoZQ454tssCmSbgQTRErbzN+Y2qrbTO5qnwUHGYXozbdZiGHEWHIG8VCG61/N R01XXwwI2gX3OljkRZTk1oZCxblrBCOio+n/NYR/Nji7CO1bgi7xZGkpLhdlWidNLsfKvIrQ/3t 7MiIGsWplRY8YaEqfkJUZXO0lV9qdByUiMpIwCrvy3oKvW0OpwzAR47fziiYQAriX/uVRtih9BL qFB6eeZEQ8FuJNfF3lkzDxoqbXLV32ayA0Ty48NLJPgqS00Wc9EFT68jsyK2txl5p/l7C6UYXlY paFhM22TmVj5K8Cg9yUjLEGIQJ3PDhx00CjANi9BsDn9PuJNwUp9JWRFaIYqeOOTRYvlglUcDAS vZbPD7PjlYHTSxGsnRFr0Nj9QoRBcSHCAbEi3vrz9I8x91BCNEHfMF/BnaGWakJYLxgrYhK2oZZ FHAhIsQwoX41Frkn+yoE6vCYHZCzjFpKEoF5bSOQaVp5cvdr9K0FwBSm4SL9uHd10qg8rvQy+HK OfSt X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3d8d:b0:4a2:150f:1601 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a35ac94951mr108366005e9.12.1792999355465; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 00:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip87-106-108-193.pbiaas.com. [87.106.108.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a35b4a8bc1sm84113045e9.4.2026.10.26.00.22.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 26 Oct 2026 00:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 08:22:30 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FCnther?= Noack To: Farid Zakaria Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= , =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FCnther?= Noack , Paul Moore , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Shuah Khan , Jonathan Corbet , John Ericson , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] landlock: Add access rights on created files Message-ID: <20261026.dd06418f7fd4@gnoack.org> References: <20261024-landlock-created-rights-v1-0-77c8db3f6bd2@gmail.com> <20261025.769b43a39e24@gnoack.org> <20261025.8e22954c9c47@gnoack.org> X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Sun, Oct 25, 2026 at 10:52:14AM -0700, Farid Zakaria wrote: > On Sun Oct 25, 2026 at 7:57 AM PDT, Günther Noack wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2026 at 12:07:10PM +0100, Günther Noack wrote: > >> Hello Farid! > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 24, 2026 at 01:39:16PM -0700, Farid Zakaria wrote: > >> > This is a proposal for an idea to add support for landlock to work > >> > better with build systems such as Nix where they want to apply > >> > restrictions but the paths may not yet exist. > >> > > >> > TL;DR; > >> > ======== > >> > > >> > Landlock rules attach to inodes that exist when a ruleset is built. > >> > That makes a directory shared between trusted and sandboxed tasks hard > >> > to confine: the sandbox may create entries there with > >> > LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_*, but no rule can name those entries ahead of > >> > time, and granting read access on the directory to cover them exposes > >> > every other entry as well. This series adds a rule flag that grants > >> > access rights on the entries a domain creates in a directory, instead > >> > of on the directory. > >> > > >> > Motivation > >> > ========== > >> > > >> > The motivating user is the Nix build sandbox. Every Nix build runs in > >> > its own sandbox, and a build may only read its declared inputs in > >> > /nix/store and must be able to write and read back the outputs it > >> > creates there. Nix enforces this with a private mount namespace: it > >> > creates an empty store directory and bind-mounts each input path into > >> > it, one mount per input. Nix has paid this per-input cost since the > >> > sandbox was introduced [1]. > >> > > >> > The cost is paid per build and grows with the size of the input > >> > closure. Nix is moving towards much finer-grained builds (many small > >> > derivations instead of a few large ones), so the number of sandboxes > >> > grows while each build's own work shrinks, and the sandbox setup is > >> > becoming the bottleneck. A typical build has hundreds of inputs; large > >> > ones have thousands. > >> > > >> > A microbenchmark sets up and tears down a Nix-like sandbox (user, > >> > mount, PID, IPC, UTS and network namespaces, pivot_root into a chroot, > >> > removing the chroot afterwards). It compares one bind mount per input > >> > with a single bind mount of the whole store plus one Landlock rule per > >> > input. Median latency per sandbox, one sandbox at a time, Linux 7.1, > >> > ext4, 16 cores: > >> > > >> > inputs bind mount per input one bind mount + Landlock speedup > >> > 10 3.2 ms 2.3 ms 1.4x > >> > 100 11.6 ms 2.8 ms 4.1x > >> > 1000 79.3 ms 6.4 ms 12.4x > >> > 5000 400.1 ms 24.4 ms 16.4x > >> > > >> > With Landlock, an input costs an O_PATH open and a landlock_add_rule() > >> > call: there is a single mount, and no mountpoint directory to create > >> > before the build and remove after it (removing the 1000 empty > >> > mountpoints alone took 17 ms). > >> > > >> > The single bind mount is only sound if the store listing and the > >> > undeclared store paths stay unreadable while the build can still use > >> > its outputs. Without this series, covering the outputs requires a rule > >> > on /nix/store itself, which makes every store path readable again. > >> > > >> > [1] https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/179 > >> > >> I have not done a thorough code review yet, and will focus on the > >> general approach. > >> > >> I am generally in favor of this approach where we keep track of the > >> directory inode plus the file name. > > > > Apologies, I think I was jumping to conclusions here when I read this > > too superficially - I realize that you have implemented something > > different; > > > > If I understand correctly, your proposed patch set is granting the > > access rights on every file that you are creating freshly, but not on > > files that were created by other processes in the same directory. The > > semantics, from what I can see, seem like a Landlock variant to what > > the "sticky bit" does in /tmp -- you have access to what you create > > yourself, but not to the files created by other processes. > > > > > > ## Alternative suggestion > > > > I have been discussing the other approach with Mickaël a while back. > > This would also work in use cases where we want to express a rule on a > > path whose underlying file inode might change, with examples being > > /etc/resolv.conf (recreated by a DHCP client) or Pathname Unix Domain > > Sockets (commonly recreated when services restart). > > > > In that approach, we'd add a rule like > > > > /* pseudocode; name and exact layout TBD */ > > struct landlock_path_beneath2_attr { > > __u64 allowed_access; > > __s32 parent_fd; > > char *basename; > > } > > > > During the path walk when checking for an access right, it would match > > if the parent_fd matches an inode and the name of the next path > > component is basename. For example, to access a (potentially > > changing) /etc/resolv.conf: > > > > struct landlock_path_beneath_attr2 attr = { > > .allowed_access = READ_ONLY_ACCESSES, > > .parent_fd = open("/etc", O_PATH|O_CLOEXEC), > > .basename = "resolv.conf", > > } > > > > Or to allow the creation of an output file: > > > > struct landlock_path_beneath_attr2 attr = { > > .allowed_access = READ_WRITE_ACCESSES | LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG, > > .parent_fd = open("/output/directory", O_PATH|O_CLOEXEC), > > .basename = "mymodule.o", > > } > > > > Would that be a model that would work for your Nix use case as well? > > I'm imagining that you are declaring the exact list of output files, > > is that correct? > > > > –Günther > > Gunther, > > From my reading of your suggestion and the code, I think that would work > for Nix and maybe a little simpler. Nix does know ahead of time the > output directory (/nix/store/-, one per output), so > a parent_fd and a basename that we walk uptowards would be sufficient > without creating inodes. > > This sounds like a good approach to me and my research upon your > suggestion is that it would simplify the proposal as well (drop > a patch). Should I try to implement this and send a new patch series? > (Disclosure: Will use AI to help me write the code, but will review and > test it myself.) I'm on board with this approach, but I'd recommend briefly waiting for Mickaël's ack, because he is the one who gives final approval on these patches. (In the interest of everyone's time, might be better to first figure out which of these approaches is viable, before we jump into more implementation details.) Mickaël, can you please double check and confirm that the approach I described above is in line with the one you also had in mind when we discussed it at LSS? The use of AI is fine in Landlock, I've used it myself for patches in the past. (The Linux-wide rules apply of course, as documented in [1] -- Take full responsibility for the contribution and make sure you understand it the same as if you had written it by hand.) –Günther [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html P.S.: The requirement for the "Assisted-by" tag has been dropped in commit 1e035297ffda ("docs: remove Assisted-by references") now.