The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
To: gnoack3000@gmail.com, mic@digikod.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 3/4] landlock: Document LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS
Date: Mon,  3 Aug 2026 18:31:07 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260803223109.707353-4-utilityemal77@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260803223109.707353-1-utilityemal77@gmail.com>

Document setting no_new_privs with ruleset enforcement, following the
same compatibility section style as previous ABI additions.

Include a section explaining the tradeoffs of setting no_new_privs
through any means for privileged users of Landlock.

Signed-off-by: Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
---

Notes:
    v2->v3:
    - Update the tutorial: restrict_flags per ABI version and prctl call
      skipped when LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS is used
    - Drop "Atomic" from the section title; describe the ordering instead
    - Explain that not setting no_new_privs is risky even when not required
    - Fix ABI 8/9 switch coverage (case 8 ... 10) and indentation

 Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst b/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst
index 5085822d8930..0e4a73fd5ea4 100644
--- a/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst
+++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Landlock: unprivileged access control
 =====================================
 
 :Author: Mickaël Salaün
-:Date: July 2026
+:Date: August 2026
 
 The goal of Landlock is to enable restriction of ambient rights (e.g. global
 filesystem or network access) for a set of processes.  Because Landlock
@@ -250,7 +250,8 @@ similar backwards compatibility check is needed for the restrict flags
 
     __u32 restrict_flags =
         LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_LOG_NEW_EXEC_ON |
-        LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_TSYNC;
+        LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_TSYNC |
+        LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS;
     switch (abi) {
     case 1 ... 6:
         /* Removes logging flags for ABI < 7 */
@@ -269,16 +270,36 @@ similar backwards compatibility check is needed for the restrict flags
          * children (and not for all threads, including parents and siblings).
          */
         restrict_flags &= ~LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_TSYNC;
+        __attribute__((fallthrough));
+    case 8 ... 10:
+        /* Removes no new privs flag for ABI < 11 */
+        restrict_flags &= ~LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS;
     }
 
 The next step is to restrict the current thread from gaining more privileges
-(e.g. through a SUID binary).  We now have a ruleset with the first rule
-allowing read and execute access to ``/usr`` while denying all other handled
-accesses for the filesystem, and two more rules allowing DNS queries.
+(e.g. through a SUID binary).  For unprivileged processes, setting the
+no_new_privs attribute is required by Landlock.
+
+Processes with ``CAP_SYS_ADMIN`` in their namespace can enforce a ruleset
+without it, but not setting no_new_privs is risky even when it is not
+required: sandboxed processes could still execute set-user-ID, set-group-ID
+or file-capability binaries, which would then run with elevated privileges
+while being restricted by a Landlock domain they may not expect, making them
+potential confused deputies.  Setting no_new_privs should only be avoided if
+such a privilege transition is expected.
+
+We now have a ruleset with the first rule allowing read and execute access to
+``/usr`` while denying all other handled accesses for the filesystem, and two
+more rules allowing DNS queries.
 
 .. code-block:: c
 
-    if (prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0)) {
+    /*
+     * If the ABI > 10, we can tie setting no_new_privs with successful ruleset
+     * enforcement and skip the manual prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, ...) call.
+     */
+    if (!(restrict_flags & LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS) &&
+        prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0)) {
         perror("Failed to restrict privileges");
         close(ruleset_fd);
         return 1;
@@ -792,6 +813,20 @@ when at least one sys_landlock_add_rule() call is made for it with the
 ``LANDLOCK_ADD_RULE_QUIET`` flag, additional add-rule calls for the same
 object without this flag do not clear it.
 
+no_new_privs flag (ABI < 11)
+----------------------------
+
+Starting with the Landlock ABI version 11, sys_landlock_restrict_self()
+accepts the ``LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS`` flag, which sets the
+no_new_privs attribute of the calling thread only once the enforcement of
+the ruleset succeeded: no_new_privs is set if and only if the call
+succeeds.  This removes the need for a prior :manpage:`prctl(2)`
+``PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS`` call, and with it the ``CAP_SYS_ADMIN``
+requirement.  When combined with ``LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_TSYNC``,
+no_new_privs is set on all threads of the process.  As explained in the
+tutorial above, not setting no_new_privs is risky even when it is not
+required.
+
 .. _kernel_support:
 
 Kernel support
-- 
2.54.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-08-03 22:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-03 22:31 [PATCH v3 0/4] Implement LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Justin Suess
2026-08-03 22:31 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] landlock: Add LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Justin Suess
2026-08-07 10:51   ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-08-07 13:18   ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-08-03 22:31 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] selftests/landlock: Test LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Justin Suess
2026-08-07 10:48   ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-08-03 22:31 ` Justin Suess [this message]
2026-08-07 10:57   ` [PATCH v3 3/4] landlock: Document LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Mickaël Salaün
2026-08-03 22:31 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] samples/landlock: Add LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS to sampler Justin Suess

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=20260803223109.707353-4-utilityemal77@gmail.com \
    --to=utilityemal77@gmail.com \
    --cc=gnoack3000@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --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