From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
To: "Günther Noack" <gnoack3000@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
"Alejandro Colomar" <alx.manpages@gmail.com>,
"James Morris" <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Konstantin Meskhidze" <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>,
"Paul Moore" <paul@paul-moore.com>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] landlock: Explain file descriptor access rights
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 20:38:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221209193813.972012-1-mic@digikod.net> (raw)
Starting with LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE, it is worth explaining why we
choose to restrict access checks at open time. This new "File
descriptor access rights" section is complementary to the existing
"Inode access rights" section. Add a new guiding principle related to
this section.
Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack3000@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221209193813.972012-1-mic@digikod.net
---
Changes since v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221205112621.3530557-1-mic@digikod.net
* Reworded the new section based on Günther suggestions.
* Added a new guiding principle.
* Update date.
---
Documentation/security/landlock.rst | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/security/landlock.rst b/Documentation/security/landlock.rst
index c0029d5d02eb..95a0e4726dc5 100644
--- a/Documentation/security/landlock.rst
+++ b/Documentation/security/landlock.rst
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Landlock LSM: kernel documentation
==================================
:Author: Mickaël Salaün
-:Date: September 2022
+:Date: December 2022
Landlock's goal is to create scoped access-control (i.e. sandboxing). To
harden a whole system, this feature should be available to any process,
@@ -41,12 +41,15 @@ Guiding principles for safe access controls
processes.
* Computation related to Landlock operations (e.g. enforcing a ruleset) shall
only impact the processes requesting them.
+* Resources (e.g. file descriptors) directly obtained from the kernel by a
+ sandboxed process shall retain their scoped accesses whatever process use
+ them. Cf. `File descriptor access rights`_.
Design choices
==============
-Filesystem access rights
-------------------------
+Inode access rights
+-------------------
All access rights are tied to an inode and what can be accessed through it.
Reading the content of a directory does not imply to be allowed to read the
@@ -57,6 +60,30 @@ directory, not the unlinked inode. This is the reason why
``LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REMOVE_FILE`` or ``LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER`` are not
allowed to be tied to files but only to directories.
+File descriptor access rights
+-----------------------------
+
+Access rights are checked and tied to file descriptors at open time. The
+underlying principle is that equivalent sequences of operations should lead to
+the same results, when they are executed under the same Landlock domain.
+
+Taking the ``LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE`` right as an example, it may be
+allowed to open a file for writing without being allowed to
+:manpage:`ftruncate` the resulting file descriptor if the related file
+hierarchy doesn't grant such access right. The following sequences of
+operations have the same semantic and should then have the same result:
+
+* ``truncate(path);``
+* ``int fd = open(path, O_WRONLY); ftruncate(fd); close(fd);``
+
+Similarly to file access modes (e.g. ``O_RDWR``), Landlock access rights
+attached to file descriptors are retained even if they are passed between
+processes (e.g. through a Unix domain socket). Such access rights will then be
+enforced even if the receiving process is not sandboxed by Landlock. Indeed,
+this is required to keep a consistent access control over the whole system, and
+avoid unattended bypasses through file descriptor passing (i.e. confused deputy
+attack).
+
Tests
=====
base-commit: 0b4ab8cd635e8b21e42c14b9e4810ca701babd11
--
2.38.1
next reply other threads:[~2022-12-09 19:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-09 19:38 Mickaël Salaün [this message]
2022-12-12 7:39 ` [PATCH v2] landlock: Explain file descriptor access rights Günther Noack
2022-12-15 12:45 ` Mickaël Salaün
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20221209193813.972012-1-mic@digikod.net \
--to=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=alx.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=gnoack3000@gmail.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).