1 files changed, 129 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/security/landlock.rst b/Documentation/security/landlock.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..36f26501fd15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/security/landlock.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+.. Copyright © 2017-2020 Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
+.. Copyright © 2019-2020 ANSSI
+
+==================================
+Landlock LSM: kernel documentation
+==================================
+
+:Author: Mickaël Salaün
+:Date: December 2022
+
+Landlock's goal is to create scoped access-control (i.e. sandboxing).  To
+harden a whole system, this feature should be available to any process,
+including unprivileged ones.  Because such process may be compromised or
+backdoored (i.e. untrusted), Landlock's features must be safe to use from the
+kernel and other processes point of view.  Landlock's interface must therefore
+expose a minimal attack surface.
+
+Landlock is designed to be usable by unprivileged processes while following the
+system security policy enforced by other access control mechanisms (e.g. DAC,
+LSM).  Indeed, a Landlock rule shall not interfere with other access-controls
+enforced on the system, only add more restrictions.
+
+Any user can enforce Landlock rulesets on their processes.  They are merged and
+evaluated according to the inherited ones in a way that ensures that only more
+constraints can be added.
+
+User space documentation can be found here:
+Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst.
+
+Guiding principles for safe access controls
+===========================================
+
+* A Landlock rule shall be focused on access control on kernel objects instead
+  of syscall filtering (i.e. syscall arguments), which is the purpose of
+  seccomp-bpf.
+* To avoid multiple kinds of side-channel attacks (e.g. leak of security
+  policies, CPU-based attacks), Landlock rules shall not be able to
+  programmatically communicate with user space.
+* Kernel access check shall not slow down access request from unsandboxed
+  processes.
+* Computation related to Landlock operations (e.g. enforcing a ruleset) shall
+  only impact the processes requesting them.
+* Resources (e.g. file descriptors) directly obtained from the kernel by a
+  sandboxed process shall retain their scoped accesses (at the time of resource
+  acquisition) whatever process use them.
+  Cf. `File descriptor access rights`_.
+
+Design choices
+==============
+
+Inode access rights
+-------------------
+
+All access rights are tied to an inode and what can be accessed through it.
+Reading the content of a directory does not imply to be allowed to read the
+content of a listed inode.  Indeed, a file name is local to its parent
+directory, and an inode can be referenced by multiple file names thanks to
+(hard) links.  Being able to unlink a file only has a direct impact on the
+directory, not the unlinked inode.  This is the reason why
+``LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REMOVE_FILE`` or ``LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER`` are not
+allowed to be tied to files but only to directories.
+
+File descriptor access rights
+-----------------------------
+
+Access rights are checked and tied to file descriptors at open time.  The
+underlying principle is that equivalent sequences of operations should lead to
+the same results, when they are executed under the same Landlock domain.
+
+Taking the ``LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE`` right as an example, it may be
+allowed to open a file for writing without being allowed to
+:manpage:`ftruncate` the resulting file descriptor if the related file
+hierarchy doesn't grant such access right.  The following sequences of
+operations have the same semantic and should then have the same result:
+
+* ``truncate(path);``
+* ``int fd = open(path, O_WRONLY); ftruncate(fd); close(fd);``
+
+Similarly to file access modes (e.g. ``O_RDWR``), Landlock access rights
+attached to file descriptors are retained even if they are passed between
+processes (e.g. through a Unix domain socket).  Such access rights will then be
+enforced even if the receiving process is not sandboxed by Landlock.  Indeed,
+this is required to keep a consistent access control over the whole system, and
+this avoids unattended bypasses through file descriptor passing (i.e. confused
+deputy attack).
+
+Tests
+=====
+
+Userspace tests for backward compatibility, ptrace restrictions and filesystem
+support can be found here: `tools/testing/selftests/landlock/`_.
+
+Kernel structures
+=================
+
+Object
+------
+
+.. kernel-doc:: security/landlock/object.h
+    :identifiers:
+
+Filesystem
+----------
+
+.. kernel-doc:: security/landlock/fs.h
+    :identifiers:
+
+Ruleset and domain
+------------------
+
+A domain is a read-only ruleset tied to a set of subjects (i.e. tasks'
+credentials).  Each time a ruleset is enforced on a task, the current domain is
+duplicated and the ruleset is imported as a new layer of rules in the new
+domain.  Indeed, once in a domain, each rule is tied to a layer level.  To
+grant access to an object, at least one rule of each layer must allow the
+requested action on the object.  A task can then only transit to a new domain
+that is the intersection of the constraints from the current domain and those
+of a ruleset provided by the task.
+
+The definition of a subject is implicit for a task sandboxing itself, which
+makes the reasoning much easier and helps avoid pitfalls.
+
+.. kernel-doc:: security/landlock/ruleset.h
+    :identifiers:
+
+.. Links
+.. _tools/testing/selftests/landlock/:
+   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/