From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f73.google.com (mail-ed1-f73.google.com [209.85.208.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A67D9215061 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2025 16:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.73 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741019091; cv=none; b=PUQI4JFg+yRfbVFdbbgt76vZ51kFoipPITOQJa1M6SAkESyokSOgzJABaYzEc0WlXCyt9GWZmjVG3qvCAjFJe2C3T+83LKQ4Seuo5Nr/2DlPGvE2tUhg9uqj5gxsOOUOOsmiSkh1ylgxP+YpEPb78JYpwjWqw6zdXM3QcJyu7wc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741019091; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jw7/kQA5OwPx9eHYWIvFPKi7vpT4waOduVJmre7wldo=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=tJF+0oDtRCVazXZNEZ+YMncZEC7ZiLZhvwOeGc54sIKrzpdFLEeZWUgklP0WsFPjyJ1BFQlDliFLT/RnXLRRlVRFlY64tVJlwNkuz5mGd7piN33Ep5SNE+QQT609fVvMe79hvTrnfAXvPPO+24yaCyEx7babTTO6w8+DSLFDT28= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--gnoack.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=AT0bd+P+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.73 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--gnoack.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="AT0bd+P+" Received: by mail-ed1-f73.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5e4987b2107so4711686a12.0 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2025 08:24:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1741019088; x=1741623888; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=UEqWLXEew5uRYbyxTZYQ6MgCQaS4BNkNIeAHqm8Uq1k=; b=AT0bd+P+C74e3+wIDS3l6vUKcMNtJAtmgv2UYmSztctA9Yv4O1jwSxz2qvJ5P1Gr/6 26BIop8PG1LRuE0OH3Pq0c0yHaPGdZk2OHylhv0rDnLXQTIDv6rlp6eZWj2ErI+ofHJz KYPl/09z4OYY14WSExmYcWfRYai3VJBHU11+hXRl4yxCV3xz+Ct+JoG4HIJid/hIyoze 2d3H8ZBp7ociM0YGsd6xbjgu5jcIztAGaftIyxPVmiP5R0mhcfGRkTuS076MBcSl5dku dzh88qfQh+JxMxlYCJ55pbdc8c2rebcWOtlQiuXqkgeajT+9Rlb6XyB8skMjpavGZWvg BseQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1741019088; x=1741623888; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UEqWLXEew5uRYbyxTZYQ6MgCQaS4BNkNIeAHqm8Uq1k=; b=LQmos1m5XoCTwQia7zttpdrUf3h+ef9OtaX23mQK0dBpyMEs7F1TN9cXJPy1qCoXzg kjfPOjQH16jxPHCNIMQ4k4YlZ+9s+JLEmrtJxudUrcfMn1AkzqIeedKP6045hPQtfQO2 e3iNhfhcN6T7bDOEDGGJj0VEQcLnTNdUpjcoFzesJHrn/EYX3+9RbL2XNI4qvZU6megw ZBWkEB/ENFq7mvix6DV9zB0v2zxZku1IOJkFcmIkbDcohCnKqWtNcR7n4azQvQurGCpi eaQU0ypVOge6VqEJoZH37ijH/KysSK+Ld9Rzh0JZ59e3QerzeIRM4dC5/gSGQOjcVZ3B KlBw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVnbwCqAgl09wBtqK9+r45wuh2a9wfP6mF0PhLexLaC4woEXkgUP6qUlmeYx6kGXHlx0/F6QRnEYgk=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzW8uvQNxcCQsDsMl+QN7GOEcIhSCzjzELYJIypjhtaK3EkAg+b CPGGQRMu9m9qkkZ5mTR2jsreRZI9QFdoKkFUl9hgR3f6H0MZnMtMPpB3rB8URNGuobWKeIwoI+u N2w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHPGxhI2JuHu2Pq9WNx5PLNPYFHLH06yAjoBMoN79g3tVeuwj4rZpgaYAG2cK0qXBWovekAZvCizRA= X-Received: from edbef3.prod.google.com ([2002:a05:6402:28c3:b0:5e4:cfa6:790c]) (user=gnoack job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a05:6402:42c2:b0:5de:dd31:1fad with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5e4d6ad45e8mr14731923a12.6.1741019087095; Mon, 03 Mar 2025 08:24:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 17:24:45 +0100 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-man@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20250226211814.31420-2-gnoack@google.com> <20250226212911.34502-3-gnoack@google.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] landlock.7: Move over documentation for ABI version 6 From: "=?utf-8?Q?G=C3=BCnther?= Noack" To: Alejandro Colomar Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?Micka=C3=ABl_Sala=C3=BCn?=" , Tahera Fahimi , Tanya Agarwal , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Burgener Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Alejandro! For context, in this patch set, we have three commits: * 1/3 and 2/3 copy documentation from the kernel side unmodified. * 3/3 revises a section about Landlock's "scoped" restriction features. I thought it would be easier to discuss with the "copy" and "rewrite" parts separate, but actually, as you also noticed, 3/3 does rewrite large chunks = of the 2/3 commit along the way, and it is probably not worth correcting much = of that wording any more. Would you prefer if I squashed commits 2/3 and 3/3 into one? On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 10:23:47PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:29:11PM +0100, G=C3=BCnther Noack wrote: > > With this ABI version, Landlock can restrict outgoing interactions with > > higher-privileged Landlock domains through Abstract Unix Domain sockets= and > > signals. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: G=C3=BCnther Noack > > --- > > man/man7/landlock.7 | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >=20 > > diff --git a/man/man7/landlock.7 b/man/man7/landlock.7 > > index 11f76b072..30dbac73d 100644 > > --- a/man/man7/landlock.7 > > +++ b/man/man7/landlock.7 > > @@ -248,7 +248,8 @@ This access right is available since the fifth vers= ion of the Landlock ABI. > > .SS Network flags > > These flags enable to restrict a sandboxed process > > to a set of network actions. > > -This is supported since the Landlock ABI version 4. > > +.P > > +This is supported since Landlock ABI version 4. > > .P > > The following access rights apply to TCP port numbers: > > .TP > > @@ -258,6 +259,24 @@ Bind a TCP socket to a local port. > > .B LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP > > Connect an active TCP socket to a remote port. > > .\" > > +.SS Scope flags > > +These flags enable to isolate a sandboxed process from a set of IPC ac= tions. >=20 > s/to isolate/isolating/ >=20 > AFAIU, to be able to use an infinitive with enable/allow you need a > direct object in the sentence. If there's no direct object, you need a > gerund. Thanks, this is useful. Changed it to infinitive for now. FWIW, the same phrases exist on the kernel side as well, unfortunately. > > +Setting a flag for a ruleset will isolate the Landlock domain > > +to forbid connections to resources outside the domain. > > +.P > > +This is supported since Landlock ABI version 6. >=20 > I'm wondering if we should have this as a parenthetical next to the > title, like we usually do with "(since Linux X.Y)". Don't do it for > now, but please consider it for when you have some time. I'm not saying > you should do it though, just that you consider it, and tell me if you > agree or not. I added it to my notes for further revisions, I think this would indeed be more appropriate in the man pages. Is it possible to set the paranthetical without bold as well, even in a .SS subsection header? > > +.P > > +The following scopes exist: > > +.TP > > +.B LANDLOCK_SCOPE_ABSTRACT_UNIX_SOCKET > > +Restrict a sandboxed process from connecting to an abstract UNIX socke= t > > +created by a process outside the related Landlock domain > > +(e.g., a parent domain or a non-sandboxed process). > > +.TP > > +.B LANDLOCK_SCOPE_SIGNAL > > +Restrict a sandboxed process from sending a signal > > +to another process outside the domain. > > +.\" > > .SS Layers of file path access rights > > Each time a thread enforces a ruleset on itself, > > it updates its Landlock domain with a new layer of policy. > > @@ -334,6 +353,51 @@ and related syscalls on a target process, > > a sandboxed process should have a subset of the target process rules, > > which means the tracee must be in a sub-domain of the tracer. > > .\" > > +.SS IPC scoping > > +Similar to the implicit > > +.BR "Ptrace restrictions" , > > +we may want to further restrict interactions between sandboxes. > > +Each Landlock domain can be explicitly scoped for a set of actions > > +by specifying it on a ruleset. > > +For example, if a sandboxed process should not be able to > > +.BR connect (2) > > +to a non-sandboxed process through abstract > > +.BR unix (7) > > +sockets, > > +we can specify such a restriction with > > +.BR LANDLOCK_SCOPE_ABSTRACT_UNIX_SOCKET . > > +Moreover, if a sandboxed process should not be able > > +to send a signal to a non-sandboxed process, > > +we can specify this restriction with > > +.BR LANDLOCK_SCOPE_SIGNAL . > > +.P > > +A sandboxed process can connect to a non-sandboxed process > > +when its domain is not scoped. >=20 > Does "its" refer to the sandboxed one or to the non-snadboxed one? It refers to the sandboxed process. This correction would be overwritten in the following commit. I don't think it's worth fixing any more. > > +If a process's domain is scoped, > > +it can only connect to sockets created by processes in the same scope. > > +Moreover, > > +If a process is scoped to send signal >=20 > Is this a typo? s/signal/&s/ It is a typo, copied from kernel documentation. Oops. This correction is overwritten in the following commit. > > to a non-scoped process, >=20 > Should we use plural here? This correction is overwritten in the following commit. > > +it can only send signals to processes in the same scope. > > +.P > > +A connected datagram socket behaves like a stream socket > > +when its domain is scoped, > > +meaning if the domain is scoped after the socket is connected, > > +it can still > > +.BR send (2) > > +data just like a stream socket. > > +However, in the same scenario, > > +a non-connected datagram socket cannot send data (with > > +.BR sendto (2)) > > +outside its scope. > > +.P > > +A process with a scoped domain can inherit a socket > > +created by a non-scoped process. > > +The process cannot connect to this socket since it has a scoped domain= . > > +.P > > +IPC scoping does not support exceptions, so if a domain is scoped, >=20 > Please break after the first ',' too. Done. > > +no rules can be added to allow access to resources or processes >=20 > Please break after the second 'to'. Done. > > +outside of the scope. Thanks for the review, =E2=80=94G=C3=BCnther