From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f45.google.com (mail-ej1-f45.google.com [209.85.218.45]) (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 B7AEB45D182 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 16:03:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.45 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787587436; cv=none; b=GeitHmYvSYdyYJMwnoYpWhODoYIwsNUsrzK0JA50ugzdqf+FWUy65TF4S0mDxSuppO5PhXWT11Nvpml6J4dypTzlAOI8f6N4/H9kj79PuD5IQNkX4C6uN2SIJblf16Qh4O1m252ZKDrmwqHFHbO6uVLsw3jWrIKy+Fi31RWPPeA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787587436; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7zQx3GnM7KjvtJZrpo7rMHkOTIarYOBO5QCYE26EmNU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=pLePVcJjOHklf5qBEexML2z52s3bkLi/iC35jbAFE9ziTaaUUvrtigKaAPPCO1aTpTvC5zW3uXF5bWJO/VUAIrCk5dUgAQJ3QO/r+tI0eo3dzeAF+/IJtQU+vw0VqKiiRNz2rUKd6ec4ckyINQasQyTgZ2bExCUnA2fcBP9P/7A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=XFMA9uwp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.45 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=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="XFMA9uwp" Received: by mail-ej1-f45.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c2022323c37so578182166b.0 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 09:03:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1787587433; x=1788192233; 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=c2tljJuoFxVknx0eN209NVYTMTtwPyJgSuYRQ+fZhAs=; b=XFMA9uwp48fa9srmtUsbn5Id8RKvoc8SIdWoYgW9G5xqOSPXsuVTIQIUUkuPG4WTRa EmVmVMzG5zmZBTlRB1N8D6OOr282NmgjtsI9ndIzi2D82BqFAMXJ6bCg8GSLJ1WAoCKX i/YMB9jplL7FXj6KNT3Kw1tGVHUxl08USVfSPVJlVZTsm7KPDY9fjpJmGhXdDZLaAkYW 2+WXZx2/kyOPv4oz0urPEG4gWxBZU2Se5Ds3RT2xEUH0WxA6x0csR/cRYKSiH+tHotsM wHsXeqRkaxWCtdQsrFEwoaIhadTBOCP+7F/vE8PAeiPt5tV98nw0ItIPbps6rxkrOXye GnPw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1787587433; x=1788192233; 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=c2tljJuoFxVknx0eN209NVYTMTtwPyJgSuYRQ+fZhAs=; b=L5vVno4Xwf2mxGfJIL1Yzr12Njy5s0y40+E5CxyWMK277MtO5vYf0anMXcnn+VWne7 3HDJRjAwNtiLW8v9Pbl4v74abw4zemC954WNlMJLPAH3r0BYmAWkXqLmtE29JWhVvCdE 2Bnuql8Ua8tDeSnUZFcJgNnKBzPxxAO3QayUZHMhNflL4pWMZfZzPYc+tMlr926mR88g bb0Q/PJsqdUjNIGsw6HtzANEXPg7HlVeLts5o/6sRNjamwClV+2bFbdd3XpgIotYKYck U7gMALeMawsybfoXTd6MSBU305bJFe1lkQHzp8rcI/CPPWTiSfLI2c6o0vpJKOrOkWMA TM8g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+Rr7oX8jLro1flAWsKZT1tDi4LYAaiZvo6Qnnl8BoPVXhx/63CbvFAuxlj/afmUO84ixhzSm8dMQ+IjbkmtMzqs3MOYWx3M=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++lEg1CYdkMidP3yjRtjJ9be3L7auRoHB//Loh79wylfvIALTHtk nY9jnpZA0Ifv/k+Sr0BlGWhsyYuw5iftlXSiZnW+hpDLFT5badO7qw6JhTgohgTjMg== X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD11Fo5DL1M1gudwCVppT1AfHl8NUGFPK2ECjIwzwpgbid0Xcq1Kz21iYY7tzTDB v5EFmI6nSNHS14ItNKgfjE4NmXkzVvcnYLsPZZ71r7nqIpvsX4HDfwVE1dK/WhzgW3AIFWP3uwf L+SDVSkilKLyCXsSlc8l8RdoTy5H13wLW6nFVInqa8Cn85DPX5y6NccK3qZ7h6SjsbJ/YhmR6Rz uTfMOn7eSc1nobhwEZFduospMD9EKuIg7ieY4SXCQHcI1m7P2kQjuGmz/O3f1Z8p0pM4SGTR1Sc jcAOeFzDFrRC67KylhuDFVTG2FWiBxCXSMLcvxJEw9AihGQPg4HsrstPIX+MOGSFhY/9G5tpRzf H3wijiRw0h3wEfHHW44n4kWCI0NwZhg4snwimuXSB8xsFudVjaUhogXc7UX+kqzSBihuvmW7Jmj AfxmGcODlo+ykKwel46YeUdbSRADqmHM1RqT+vNwhWGRJ5D5AXPne/7hk/6kRSbGXDpWhpG6Q23 suWddqSRoiLZpE7uGg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:e901:b0:c16:769b:9838 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c246a2eba8amr3008972766b.5.1787587432258; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 09:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2a00:79e0:288a:8:c1fb:9c12:150a:ef4a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-c24967383e5sm1269779366b.45.2026.08.24.09.03.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 24 Aug 2026 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 18:03:47 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=BCnther?= Noack To: Justin Suess Cc: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=BCnther?= Noack , mic@digikod.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] landlock: Add scoped access bit for SysV message queues Message-ID: References: <20260727230833.138165-1-utilityemal77@gmail.com> <20260822.c9dcabf4999f@gnoack.org> <20260822.3340c3dd2a46@gnoack.org> <20260824.abc934a59c55@gnoack.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 08:47:28AM -0400, Justin Suess wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 08:36:10AM +0200, Günther Noack wrote: > > Agreed. I am personally leaning on the side of closing the gap as > > well, even if it reduces functionality somewhat. SystemV Message > > Queues are used very seldomly (as can be seen in Debian Code Search) > > and it would affect few programs. > > > From msgget(2): > > A new message queue is created if key has the value IPC_PRIVATE or > key isn't IPC_PRIVATE, no message queue with the given key key > exists, and IPC_CREAT is specified in msgflg. > > So more specifically, we will disallow if all three of these are true: > > - IPC_CREAT is specified > - IPC_PRIVATE is not specified. > - The queue referenced by key does not already exist > > Or if these two are true: > > - The queue referenced by key already exists. > - The queue referenced by the key is not part of the scope. > > Effectively, this allows as much as possible, including msgget(2) on an > existing queue within a scope. We technically allow msgget(2) on an existing queue within a scope, but if I understand this correctly, there is now no way to *create* such a queue within the scope. So effectively, that msgget(2) can not succeed, no? I agree with your sentiment that we don't need to implement the allow-listing approach right now. It seems like significant effort for a very small number of use cases. —Günther