From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
To: "Günther Noack" <gnoack3000@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Dwi Siswanto <me@dw1.io>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] landlock: Fix REFER in layered domains
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2026 00:24:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261113.eiChee8pohch@digikod.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261108-b4-landlock-refer-nonfs-layer-v2-0-2b405fc1b3aa@gmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 08, 2026 at 09:23:47PM +0100, Günther Noack wrote:
> This patchset fixes a bug in Landlock layering,
> reported by Dwi Siswanto in [1] and [2]. (Thanks!)
>
> The bug
> =======
>
> When Landlock initializes layer masks for path walk based checks, it
> unconditionally adds the LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER access right to the
> handled access rights.
>
> This leads to a wrong layer composition, in cases where the following
> layers are stacked:
>
> 1. A FS layer restricting REFER, but also allowing REFER in a rule
> (e.g., handle REFER, but allow REFER on /)
> 2. A non-FS layer (e.g., networking-only layer)
>
> When these rulesets are enforced **individually**, there are REFER
> operations that are allowed in both rulesets -- the ones that 1
> allows.
>
> When these rulesets are enforced **on top of each other**, the non-FS
> layer starts enforcing REFER implicitly as well, and all REFER
> operations are denied.
Good catch!
>
> This patchset
> =============
>
> This patchset fixes the issue in three commits:
Four patches now.
>
> 1) The fix, which should be backportable to older kernels
> and which is CC'd to stable@.
> 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.
> 4) A documentation update to clarify the situations where the *_REFER
> right is implicit.
>
> Please let me know what you think!
>
> –Günther
>
> [1] https://github.com/landlock-lsm/go-landlock/issues/66
> [2] https://github.com/landlock-lsm/linux/issues/67
>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Rebase on master and resolve conflicts
> - Fixed documentation as pointed out by Dwi Siswanto in
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261101125114.19009-1-me@dw1.io/
> - Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/20261030102411.12985-1-gnoack3000@gmail.com
>
> ---
> Günther Noack (4):
> landlock: Fix layer composition of LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER
> selftests/landlock: Test that layering does not break refer
> landlock: Simplify landlock_get_fs_access_mask()
> landlock: Clarify implicit handling of LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER
>
> include/uapi/linux/landlock.h | 17 +++++++------
> security/landlock/access.h | 9 ++++---
> security/landlock/domain.h | 9 ++++---
> tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> ---
> base-commit: fa4ad798f6f681031775266044ba1b0cf3c670bd
> change-id: 20261108-b4-landlock-refer-nonfs-layer-fda8bcbe0b44
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Günther Noack <gnoack3000@gmail.com>
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-12 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-08 20:23 [PATCH v2 0/4] landlock: Fix REFER in layered domains Günther Noack
2026-11-08 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] landlock: Fix layer composition of LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER Günther Noack
2026-11-12 23:25 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-11-12 23:24 ` 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=20261113.eiChee8pohch@digikod.net \
--to=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=gnoack3000@gmail.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=me@dw1.io \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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