Linux Security Modules development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Günther Noack" <gnoack3000@gmail.com>
To: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, "Dwi Siswanto" <me@dw1.io>,
	"Günther Noack" <gnoack@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] landlock: Fix REFER in layered domains
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 15:29:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261030.060f232cddbd@gnoack.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261030102411.12985-1-gnoack3000@gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 11:24:07AM +0100, Günther Noack wrote:
> This patchset
> =============
> 
> This patchset fixes the issue in three commits:
> 
> 1) The fix, which should be backportable to older kernels
>    and which is CC'd to stable@.

To be more precise, the fix needs to go in 7.2, 6.18 and 6.12.
Other stable releases predate 6.7 where the bug was introduced.

It does unfortunately not apply cleanly on the stable kernels 7.2,
6.18 and 6.12, but I have backported versions.

(Differences: In the stable versions, the affected helper function was
still in ruleset.h instead of domain.h.  In 6.12, the constant name
did not have a _ prefix yet.  In 6.12 in the tests, the
drop_access_rights() helper didn't exist.)


> 2) Regression selftests.
> 3) A more elegant fix for newer kernels,
>    which is intentionally *not* CC'd to stable@,
>    because it would break on older kernels.
> 
>    In newer kernels, we already add the "REFER" access right to the
>    handled access rights when we merge the ruleset into the new
>    domain, so there is no additional calculation to do for it.
> 
> 
> Please let me know what you think!

P.S. Mickaël: Specifically, I'd like to know whether you think this
warrants an erratum.  If yes, here is a tentative wording:


   Erratum 5: Correct REFER semantics when layering Landlock policies
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   This fix addresses an issue where, when multiple Landlock ruleset
   are layered, Landlock would restrict LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER
   operations which would have been allowed by the same rulesets
   individually.

   This change ensures that a LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER operation is
   allowed in a layered domain if all of the enforced rulesets allow
   it individually as well.

   Impact:

   This occurs in situations where one of the layers does not handle
   any filesystem access rights, but one of the other layers does.  In
   that case, the non-filesystem layer is interpreted to deny the
   LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER right.


–Günther

      parent reply	other threads:[~2026-10-30 14:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-30 10:24 [PATCH 0/3] landlock: Fix REFER in layered domains Günther Noack
2026-10-30 10:24 ` [PATCH 1/3] landlock: Fix layer composition of LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER Günther Noack
2026-10-30 10:29   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-30 10:24 ` [PATCH 2/3] selftests/landlock: Test that layering does not break refer Günther Noack
2026-10-30 10:29   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-30 10:24 ` [PATCH 3/3] landlock: Simplify landlock_get_fs_access_mask() Günther Noack
2026-10-30 10:28   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-30 14:29 ` Günther Noack [this message]

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=20261030.060f232cddbd@gnoack.org \
    --to=gnoack3000@gmail.com \
    --cc=gnoack@google.com \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=me@dw1.io \
    --cc=mic@digikod.net \
    /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