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 v4 4/5] landlock: Document LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS
Date: Sun,  9 Aug 2026 11:45:22 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260809154544.1253100-5-utilityemal77@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260809154544.1253100-1-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:
    v3->v4:
        - Reword the tutorial paragraph on CAP_SYS_ADMIN and no_new_privs to
          remove the ambiguous "it"s, per Mickaël's feedback.
        - Use the suggested "call (or ``CAP_SYS_ADMIN`` use)" wording in the
          compatibility section.

 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..782e65020b77 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 +270,37 @@ 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 setting no_new_privs, but leaving no_new_privs unset is risky even
+when Landlock does not require this attribute: 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.
+no_new_privs should only be left unset 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 +814,19 @@ 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 (or ``CAP_SYS_ADMIN`` use).  When combined
+with ``LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_TSYNC``, no_new_privs is set on all threads
+of the process.  As explained in the tutorial above, leaving no_new_privs
+unset is risky even when Landlock does not require it.
+
 .. _kernel_support:
 
 Kernel support
-- 
2.55.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-08-09 15:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-09 15:45 [PATCH v4 0/5] Implement LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Justin Suess
2026-08-09 15:45 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] landlock: Check landlock_restrict_self(2)'s flags before privileges Justin Suess
2026-08-09 15:45 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] selftests/landlock: Test LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Justin Suess
2026-08-09 15:45 ` Justin Suess [this message]
2026-08-09 15:45 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] samples/landlock: Add LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS to sampler Justin Suess
2026-08-09 15:53 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] Implement LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS Justin Suess
2026-08-09 21:24 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] landlock: Add LANDLOCK_RESTRICT_SELF_NO_NEW_PRIVS 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=20260809154544.1253100-5-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