Re: [PATCH 2/2] landlock: Clarify IPC scoping documentation
From: Daniel Burgener <hidden>
Date: 2025-01-24 15:59:01
On 1/24/2025 10:44 AM, Günther Noack wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
* Clarify terminology * Stop mixing the unix(7) and signal(7) aspects in the explanation. Terminology: * The *IPC Scope* of a Landlock domain is that Landlock domain and its nested domains. * An *operation* (e.g., signaling, connecting to abstract UDS) is said *to be scoped within a domain* when the flag for that operation was *set at ruleset creation time. This means that for the purpose of *this operation, only processes within the domain's IPC scope are *reachable. Cc: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> Cc: Tahera Fahimi <redacted> Cc: Tanya Agarwal <redacted> Signed-off-by: Günther Noack <gnoack@google.com> --- Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst | 53 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst b/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst index ca8b325d53e5..6b80106d33de 100644 --- a/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst +++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst@@ -317,33 +317,32 @@ IPC scoping ----------- Similar to the implicit `Ptrace restrictions`_, we may want to further restrict -interactions between sandboxes. Each Landlock domain can be explicitly scoped -for a set of actions by specifying it on a ruleset. For example, if a -sandboxed process should not be able to :manpage:`connect(2)` to a -non-sandboxed process through abstract :manpage:`unix(7)` sockets, we can -specify such a restriction with ``LANDLOCK_SCOPE_ABSTRACT_UNIX_SOCKET``. -Moreover, if a sandboxed process should not be able to send a signal to a -non-sandboxed process, we can specify this restriction with -``LANDLOCK_SCOPE_SIGNAL``. - -A sandboxed process can connect to a non-sandboxed process when its domain is -not scoped. If a process's domain is scoped, it can only connect to sockets -created by processes in the same scope. -Moreover, if a process is scoped to send signal to a non-scoped process, it can -only send signals to processes in the same scope. - -A connected datagram socket behaves like a stream socket when its domain is -scoped, meaning if the domain is scoped after the socket is connected, it can -still :manpage:`send(2)` data just like a stream socket. However, in the same -scenario, a non-connected datagram socket cannot send data (with -:manpage:`sendto(2)`) outside its scope. - -A process with a scoped domain can inherit a socket created by a non-scoped -process. The process cannot connect to this socket since it has a scoped -domain. - -IPC scoping does not support exceptions, so if a domain is scoped, no rules can -be added to allow access to resources or processes outside of the scope. +interactions between sandboxes. Therefore, at ruleset creation time, each +Landlock domain can restrict the scope for certain operations, so that these +operations can only reach out to processes within the same Landlock domain or in +a nested Landlock domain (the "scope"). + +The operations which can be scoped are: + +``LANDLOCK_SCOPE_SIGNAL`` + When set, this limits the sending of signals to target processes which run + within the same or a nested Landlock domain. + +``LANDLOCK_SCOPE_ABSTRACT_UNIX_SOCKET`` + When set, this limits the set of abstract :manpage:`unix(7)` sockets we can + :manpage:`connect(2)` to to socket addresses which were created by a process
The "to to" takes a couple of reads to parse. Would "...this limits the set of abstract :manpage:`unix(7)` sockets to which we can :manpage:`connect(2)` to socket addresses which were..." perhaps be easier to read?
+ in the same or a nested Landlock domain. + + A :manpage:`send(2)` on a non-connected datagram socket is treated like an + implicit :manpage:`connect(2)` and will be blocked when the remote end does + not stem from the same or a nested Landlock domain. + + A :manpage:`send(2)` on a socket which was previously connected will work.
Maybe overly pedantic, but I wonder if something like "will not be restricted" instead of "will work" would be clearer? "Work" just has a lot of meanings. I don't think it's actually ambiguous as written, I just think that a more precise word could avoid the potential for confusion. -Daniel
+ This works for both datagram and stream sockets. + +IPC scoping does not support exceptions via :manpage:`landlock_add_rule(2)`. +If an operation is scoped within a domain, no rules can be added to allow access +to resources or processes outside of the scope. Truncating files ----------------