From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
To: utilityemal77@gmail.com,ast@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,andrii@kernel.org,kpsingh@kernel.org,matt@bobrowski.net,paul@paul-moore.com,mic@digikod.net,viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,brauner@kernel.org,kees@kernel.org
Cc: casey@schaufler-ca.com,gnoack@google.com,jack@suse.cz,song@kernel.org,yonghong.song@linux.dev,martin.lau@linux.dev,eddyz87@gmail.com,memxor@gmail.com,jolsa@kernel.org,m@maowtm.org,bpf@vger.kernel.org,linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,utilityemal77@gmail.com,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,mason@kernel.org,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 11/15] landlock: Factor the credential restriction out of landlock_restrict_self()
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2026 20:29:55 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3c28736e3864daa3aca308ac20ca4ddf11da29c951013e0daf7a7a9d2c2c780b@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260909193719.518517-12-utilityemal77@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5989 bytes --]
> diff --git a/security/landlock/cred.c b/security/landlock/cred.c
> index 03449c26247e..f02706f12c7d 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/cred.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/cred.c
> @@ -8,14 +8,146 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/binfmts.h>
> +#include <linux/bits.h>
> #include <linux/cred.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
This isn't a bug, but is <linux/errno.h> needed here? The new code
returns PTR_ERR(new_dom) (from <linux/err.h>) and never names an -Exxx
constant.
> +#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <uapi/linux/landlock.h>
>
> #include "common.h"
> #include "cred.h"
> +#include "domain.h"
> #include "ruleset.h"
> #include "setup.h"
>
> +#include <trace/events/landlock.h>
> +
> +/**
> + * landlock_prepare_restriction - Compute a credential restriction
> + *
> + * @llcred: Landlock credentials to restrict: provides the parent domain and
> + * the previous log configuration. Not modified.
> + * @ruleset: Ruleset to enforce, or NULL for a log-configuration-only change.
> + * @flags: landlock_restrict_self(2) flags. The caller is responsible for
> + * validating them against the set of flags it supports.
> + * @restriction: Computed restriction. On success, holds a reference on
> + * @restriction->domain (if any), which
> + * landlock_apply_restriction() transfers to the restricted
> + * credentials.
> + *
> + * The restriction builds on @llcred's current state: the caller must apply
> + * it to (or stage it for) these same credentials.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, -errno on failure.
> + */
> +int landlock_prepare_restriction(
> + const struct landlock_cred_security *const llcred,
> + struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset, const u32 flags,
> + struct landlock_restriction *const restriction)
> +{
[ ... ]
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK_LOG
> + new_dom->hierarchy->log_same_exec = log_same_exec;
> + new_dom->hierarchy->log_new_exec = log_new_exec;
> + /*
> + * The creation event fired above, so move the domain out of
> + * LANDLOCK_LOG_UNCOMMITTED: its free_domain event must fire
> + * too, even if the domain is dropped before being enforced.
> + * Audit logging may still be disabled (DISABLED); tracing
> + * observes it anyway.
> + */
> + if ((!log_same_exec && !log_new_exec) || !prev_log_subdomains)
> + new_dom->hierarchy->log_status = LANDLOCK_LOG_DISABLED;
> + else
> + new_dom->hierarchy->log_status = LANDLOCK_LOG_PENDING;
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK_LOG */
The LANDLOCK_LOG_UNCOMMITTED -> PENDING/DISABLED transition moves from
sys_landlock_restrict_self() into landlock_prepare_restriction(), but
comments that document this contract by naming the old site remain
unrevisioned, and no later commit in the 02756181d382..1cc3305917e4
range updates them either.
In security/landlock/domain.c (landlock_init_hierarchy_log):
/*
* The hierarchy is born unobservable: landlock_restrict_self() moves it
* out of LANDLOCK_LOG_UNCOMMITTED once it has emitted the creation
* event, so the matching free_domain event fires for it and not for a
* hierarchy whose creation was never observed.
*/
In security/landlock/trace.c (landlock_trace_free_domain):
* Fires only for a hierarchy whose creation event was emitted, i.e. one that
* left LANDLOCK_LOG_UNCOMMITTED in landlock_restrict_self(). ...
* while a domain that landlock_restrict_self() created and a
* thread-sync failure then aborted still fires free_domain, ...
In include/trace/events/landlock.h (Lifecycle consistency block):
The window is still described as 'A rare thread-sync failure aborts the
just-created domain' even though the new helper's documentation
(cred.c:89-93) states it also covers an aborted execution, introduced
two commits later in 0a88c757f4f0.
After this commit, landlock_prepare_restriction() performs the
transition, and 0a88c757f4f0 adds a second, non-syscall caller
(bprm_apply_policy_object()), so 'landlock_restrict_self()' no longer
enforces this invariant nor provides the only path that can create and
drop a domain.
Behaviour is unaffected, but should these references be updated to
reflect the new code structure?
> +
> + restriction->domain = new_dom;
> + return 0;
> +}
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> index cb294a3582ae..9451376ccf50 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
>
> #include <asm/current.h>
> #include <linux/anon_inodes.h>
> -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> #include <linux/build_bug.h>
> #include <linux/capability.h>
> #include <linux/cleanup.h>
[ ... ]
> @@ -546,10 +544,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(landlock_restrict_self, const int, ruleset_fd, const __u32,
> struct landlock_ruleset *ruleset __free(landlock_put_ruleset) = NULL;
> struct landlock_domain *new_dom = NULL;
> struct cred *new_cred;
This isn't a bug, but is the `= NULL` initializer still needed here?
Before the refactor, new_dom was only assigned inside the if (ruleset)
block, so the initializer was load-bearing for the later if (ruleset)
trace_landlock_enforce_domain(new_dom, ...) call. After the split,
new_dom is assigned unconditionally from restriction.domain, and every
path between the declaration and that assignment is a plain return. It
is the only `= NULL` pointer initializer left in the file apart from the
__free() declaration on the line above.
> - struct landlock_cred_security *new_llcred;
> + struct landlock_restriction restriction;
> bool process_wide;
> - bool __maybe_unused log_same_exec, log_new_exec, log_subdomains,
> - prev_log_subdomains;
> + int err;
[ ... ]
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/34398515657
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-09 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-09 19:37 [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/15] BPF interface for applying Landlock rulesets Justin Suess
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/15] lsm: Add the LSM policy object lifetime hooks Justin Suess
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/15] lsm: Add the bprm_apply_policy_object LSM hook Justin Suess
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/15] lsm: Move the lsm_for_each_hook() macro to security/lsm.h Justin Suess
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/15] lsm: Add the bpf_lsm_policy_release kfunc and policy object destructor Justin Suess
2026-09-09 20:29 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-09 21:34 ` Paul Moore
2026-09-09 22:20 ` Justin Suess
2026-09-09 23:08 ` Paul Moore
2026-09-12 3:37 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-12 5:26 ` Justin Suess
2026-09-12 19:33 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-13 19:41 ` Paul Moore
2026-09-13 23:24 ` LSM boundaries. Was: " Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-14 0:10 ` Paul Moore
2026-09-14 2:24 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-14 21:18 ` Dr. Greg
2026-09-15 13:00 ` Christian Brauner
2026-09-15 13:48 ` Paul Moore
2026-09-16 8:48 ` Christian Brauner
2026-09-21 2:44 ` Paul Moore
2026-09-14 0:20 ` Justin Suess
2026-09-14 2:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-15 1:13 ` Justin Suess
2026-09-16 17:37 ` Dr. Greg
2026-09-16 16:06 ` Dr. Greg
2026-09-15 9:25 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-09-16 17:02 ` Dr. Greg
2026-09-16 20:58 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-09-16 20:20 ` Günther Noack
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/15] lsm: Add the bpf_lsm_policy_from_fd kfunc Justin Suess
2026-09-09 20:46 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/15] lsm: Add the bpf_lsm_policy_acquire kfunc Justin Suess
2026-09-09 20:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/15] lsm: Add the bpf_lsm_policy_apply_bprm kfunc Justin Suess
2026-09-12 3:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-12 5:39 ` Justin Suess
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 08/15] lsm: Document the LSM policy object interface Justin Suess
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 09/15] selftests/bpf: Add tests for the LSM policy object kfuncs Justin Suess
2026-09-09 20:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 10/15] landlock: Expose the ruleset fd lookup to the rest of Landlock Justin Suess
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 11/15] landlock: Factor the credential restriction out of landlock_restrict_self() Justin Suess
2026-09-09 20:29 ` bot+bpf-ci [this message]
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 12/15] landlock: Free rulesets after an RCU grace period Justin Suess
2026-09-09 20:46 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 13/15] landlock: Implement the LSM policy object hooks Justin Suess
2026-09-09 20:46 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 14/15] selftests/bpf: Test the LSM policy object kfuncs with Landlock Justin Suess
2026-09-09 20:46 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-09 19:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 15/15] landlock: Document the BPF policy interface 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=3c28736e3864daa3aca308ac20ca4ddf11da29c951013e0daf7a7a9d2c2c780b@mail.kernel.org \
--to=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=gnoack@google.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m@maowtm.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=matt@bobrowski.net \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=utilityemal77@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®