From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
To: Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
Cc: gnoack3000@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Implement LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 23:28:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260731.at2Zilei1ech@digikod.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260717220320.1030123-1-utilityemal77@gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Justin Suess wrote:
> Howdy
>
> This series adds a new landlock_restrict_self(2) flag:
> LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS.
>
> This is a redesign of v1 [1], which added
> LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NNP_ON_EXEC, a flag staging no_new_privs so that
> it was only set at the next execve(2). Following Mickaël's feedback,
> [2] the staging mechanism (credential bit and bprm_committing_creds hook)
> is dropped entirely. The new flag instead sets the no_new_privs
> attribute of the calling thread atomically with the enforcement of the
> ruleset: no_new_privs is set if and only if the
> landlock_restrict_self(2) call succeeds.
>
> Semantics:
>
> A single call replaces the usual prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS) +
> landlock_restrict_self(2) pair. Because no_new_privs is set by the
> call itself, the no_new_privs/CAP_SYS_ADMIN precondition is fulfilled
> by construction, so the flag is usable by unprivileged processes. This
> is safe for the same reason the prctl(2) pair is: the executed programs
> can either gain privileges or be restricted, never both.
>
> The two states cannot diverge. A failed call (invalid ruleset FD,
> E2BIG, ENOMEM, interrupted TSYNC, ...) leaves no_new_privs unchanged,
> and a successful call never returns without no_new_privs set: the
> attribute is set past the last point of failure, right before
> commit_creds(), which cannot fail.
>
> Combined with LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_TSYNC, no_new_privs is set on all
> threads with the same guarantee: each sibling thread sets it in the
> commit phase of the TSYNC protocol, after its all-or-nothing barrier,
> so either every thread gets both the domain and no_new_privs, or none
> does. This also makes it possible to atomically set no_new_privs
> process-wide, which prctl(2) cannot do.
>
> Unlike the v1 flag, this flag requires a ruleset: calls with a
> ruleset_fd of -1 are rejected. As a consequence of the fulfilled
> precondition, an unprivileged caller passing unknown flag bits together
> with this flag receives EINVAL instead of EPERM; the selftests pin this
> error ordering as well.
>
> The reason why -1 ruleset_fd is rejected is basically then we are
> making a Landlock-flaved prctl(nnp) call that doesn't do anything
> special. It seems better to be able to have the option to define
> behavior later rather than have a useless feature stuck in the
> syscall abi. So we reject the -1 ruleset_fd for now.
I think it's the right approach to always require a valid ruleset (see
my reply on the previous thread), and this should be explained in the
commit message. I don't see valid use cases where someone would like to
set NNP+TSYNC but not add any Landlock restrictions as well.
>
> The Landlock ABI version is bumped to 11.
>
> Test coverage:
>
> base_test checks that a successful call sets no_new_privs without a
> prior prctl(2) nor CAP_SYS_ADMIN, that a failed call leaves it
> unchanged, that the flag requires a ruleset FD, and the updated
> EPERM/EINVAL ordering. tsync_test checks that TSYNC sets no_new_privs
> on sibling threads along with the domain.
>
> Changes since v1:
>
> - Renamed LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NNP_ON_EXEC to
> LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS, per Mickaël's feedback.
> - Dropped the staged "on exec" design: removed the credential bit and
> the bprm_committing_creds hook; no_new_privs is now set atomically
> with the ruleset enforcement.
> - The flag now fulfills the no_new_privs/CAP_SYS_ADMIN precondition,
> a significant departure from the v1.
> - The flag now requires a ruleset (no ruleset_fd = -1). Otherwise such
> a call would just == a vanilla prctl no-new-privs call. This is left
> in case we want to repurpose it later rather than defining useless
> redundant behavior.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20260708133928.852999-1-utilityemal77@gmail.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20260709.Eaphooyoh6sh@digikod.net/
>
> Justin Suess (3):
> landlock: Add LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS
> selftests/landlock: Test LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS
> landlock: Document LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS
>
> Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst | 14 +++-
> include/uapi/linux/landlock.h | 13 ++++
> security/landlock/limits.h | 2 +-
> security/landlock/syscalls.c | 28 ++++++--
> security/landlock/tsync.c | 8 ++-
> security/landlock/tsync.h | 4 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++--
> tools/testing/selftests/landlock/tsync_test.c | 33 ++++++++++
> 8 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 55f82176ef8dde632ea3eb94a6224950ed809d7c
> --
> 2.54.0
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-31 21:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-17 22:03 [PATCH v2 0/3] Implement LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Justin Suess
2026-07-17 22:03 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] landlock: Add LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Justin Suess
2026-07-31 21:29 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-07-31 22:43 ` Justin Suess
2026-07-17 22:03 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] selftests/landlock: Test LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Justin Suess
2026-07-31 21:29 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-07-17 22:03 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] landlock: Document LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Justin Suess
2026-07-31 21:34 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-07-31 21:28 ` Mickaël Salaün [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=20260731.at2Zilei1ech@digikod.net \
--to=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=gnoack3000@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=utilityemal77@gmail.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