All of
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Mickaël Salaün" <>
To: "Casey Schaufler" <>,
	"Günther Noack" <>
Cc: Xiu Jianfeng <>,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/5] landlock: add chmod and chown support
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 19:10:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 22/08/2022 23:53, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/22/2022 2:21 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> On 22/08/2022 23:18, Günther Noack wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 12:35:18PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2022 12:17 PM, Günther Noack wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>> Very exciting to see! Thank you for sending this! :)
>>>>> I'm just throwing in some comments based on the very similar truncate
>>>>> patch set, in the hope that it helps. (But obviously, Mickaël Salaün
>>>>> has the last word on this code.)
>>>>> Slightly higher level question: Should we start to group the
>>>>> functionality of multiple LSM hooks under one Landlock flag? (Will it
>>>>> be harder to change the LSM hook interface in the future if we
>>>>> continue to add one flag per hook? Or is this structure already
>>>>> exposed to userspace by other LSMs?)
>>>> I'm not a landlock expert. The question is nonsensical, yet somewhat
>>>> frightening nonetheless. Could you put just a touch more context into
>>>> what you're asking for?
>>> By "Landlock flags", I meant the integer that Landlock uses to
>>> represent the set of possible operations on a file hierarchy:
>>> Landlock's file system access rights (access_mode_t on the kernel
>>> side) are defined with an integer with flags (LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_*)
>>> for different operations that one might do with files. They get used
>>> from userspace to control what is permitted on which parts of the file
>>> system. (Docs:
>>> Currently most of the available Landlock flags map pretty closely to
>>> one of the file- and path-related LSM hooks. (See various hook
>>> implementations in security/landlock/fs.c)
>>> The file system operations that Landlock doesn't cover yet (as of
>>> kernel 5.19) are listed below, and there are potentially a few more
>>> that might be missing. I suspect/hope that there will be more patches
>>> in the style of the truncate/chmod/chown patches, which will add that
>>> coverage.
>>> The question is basically:
>>> When these patches get added, how should the userspace-exposed
>>> Landlock file system access rights map to the LSM hooks for these
>>> upcoming Landlock features? Should each of the newly covered
>>> operations have its own flag, or is it better to group them?
>>> (It's well possible that the right answer is "one flag per feature",
>>> but I feel it still makes sense to ask this before all these patches
>>> get written?)
>> Landlock is not strictly tied to the current LSM hooks, but they fit
>> well (because they are designed to be flexible enough to be use by
>> multiple access control systems). In fact, Landlock already uses
>> orthogonal access rights such as LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER (using the
>> path_link or path_rename hooks), LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_* (using the
>> path_mknod and path_mkdir hooks)…
>> Anyway, the LSM framework is evolving, we can add new hooks and modify
>> others (e.g. see the security_path_rename hook modification for
>> FS_REFER) as long as mainline access control systems don't break and
>> subsystem maintainers are OK with such changes. Like any kernel API,
>> the LSM API is not stable, but this is not an issue for mainline code.
>> Landlock's goal is to find the sweet spot between flexibility for
>> different sandboxing use cases and an understandable/simple-enough
>> access control system. The access rights should then be meaningful for
>> users, which are already familiar with the UAPI/syscalls, hence the
>> current Landlock access rights (which are not very original, and that
>> is a good thing). This is why I'm wondering if it is worth it to
>> differentiate between chmod and chgrp (and add a dedicated access
>> right per action or only one for both).
> The lesson from capabilities is that differentiating between chmod, chown and chgrp is
> pointless, and CAP_DAC_CHMOD, CAP_DAC_CHOWN and CAP_DAC_CHGRP should have just been
> CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE. On the other hand, those who argue that SELinux proves the value of
> fine granularity would likely have you go with separate rights. What's important is
> that you don't tie your rights too tightly to the underlying implementation. That has
> the potential to expose details of how the code work that user-space has no business
> basing decisions on.

Indeed, for a sandboxing feature like Landlock, it may not be useful to 
duplicate other access rights. From a user point of view, I think it 
would make sense to split the file metadata modification into 
potentially-security related or not. That would means three access rights:
- modify user/informative metadata (e.g. dates, user.* xattr);
- modify security-related metadata (e.g. chown, chmod, chgrp, any other 
- read any metadata.

This require some LSM hook changes to handle paths instead of inodes 
(e.g. security_inode_setattr, security_inode_setxattr…).

      reply	other threads:[~2022-08-23 18:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-22 11:46 [PATCH -next 0/5] landlock: add chmod and chown support Xiu Jianfeng
2022-08-22 11:46 ` [PATCH -next 1/5] landlock: expand access_mask_t to u32 type Xiu Jianfeng
2022-08-22 11:46 ` [PATCH -next 2/5] landlock: add chmod and chown support Xiu Jianfeng
2022-08-22 18:25   ` Günther Noack
2022-08-22 21:07     ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-08-23 12:50       ` xiujianfeng
2022-08-24 11:44         ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-08-26  8:36           ` xiujianfeng
2022-08-26  9:36             ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-08-26 11:14               ` xiujianfeng
2022-08-26 11:32                 ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-08-22 11:46 ` [PATCH -next 3/5] landlock/selftests: add selftests for chmod and chown Xiu Jianfeng
2022-08-22 18:53   ` Günther Noack
2022-08-22 21:28     ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-08-24  8:27     ` xiujianfeng
2022-08-22 19:26   ` Günther Noack
2022-08-27 11:14     ` xiujianfeng
2022-08-27 16:57       ` Günther Noack
2022-08-22 11:47 ` [PATCH -next 4/5] landlock/samples: add chmod and chown support Xiu Jianfeng
2022-08-22 11:47 ` [PATCH -next 5/5] landlock: update chmod and chown support in document Xiu Jianfeng
2022-08-22 21:25   ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-08-22 19:17 ` [PATCH -next 0/5] landlock: add chmod and chown support Günther Noack
2022-08-22 19:35   ` Casey Schaufler
2022-08-22 21:18     ` Günther Noack
2022-08-22 21:21       ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-08-22 21:53         ` Casey Schaufler
2022-08-23 17:10           ` 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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.