On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 08:51:47PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 01:27:44PM -0400, Justin Suess wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 02:12:42PM +0200, Günther Noack wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Justin Suess wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2026 at 09:56:28AM +0200, Günther Noack wrote: > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 02:03:05PM -0400, Justin Suess wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 06:48:19PM +0800, Cai Xinchen wrote: > > > > > > > This series adds two new Landlock filesystem access rights, > > > > > > > LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_READ_METADATA and > > > > > > > LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_METADATA, > > > > > > > which control access to file and directory metadata such as inode > > > > > > > attributes (mode, ownership, timestamps), extended attributes and > > > > > > > POSIX > > > > > > > ACLs. It picks up the work from the "landlock: add chmod and > > > > > > > chown > > > > > > > support" series [1] and follows the coarse-grained grouping > > > > > > > discussed in > > > > > > > that thread [2]: instead of separate chmod/chown rights, metadata > > > > > > > operations are grouped into one read and one write right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Landlock evaluates access rights on a per-path basis, but the > > > > > > > metadata > > > > > > > related LSM hooks (inode_getattr, inode_setattr, inode_setxattr, > > > > > > > inode_getxattr, inode_listxattr, inode_removexattr, inode_set_acl, > > > > > > > inode_get_acl, inode_remove_acl) only receive the dentry of the > > > > > > > accessed > > > > > > > object. Patches 1-7 therefore first pass struct path instead of > > > > > > > dentry > > > > > > > through the metadata-related VFS helpers and LSM hooks. This is > > > > > > > a pure > > > > > > > refactoring with no behavior change, split so that every patch > > > > > > > builds > > > > > > > and works on its own: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like these patches, but is the ability to read metadata already > > > > > > sorta controlled by LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_READ_DIR on the parent > > > > > > directory? > > > > > > > > > > > > The one case I see this being different is: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. if you wanted to grant read access to the file, but not metadata > > > > > > read access, but I can't think of any usecase for being able to read > > > > > > the contents of a file, but not the metadata. (see below) > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. If you had the absolute path already and didn't need READ_DIR. > > > > > > > > > > > > I see introducing this READ_METADATA as causing potential > > > > > > hard-to-diagnose issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > Say you handle READ_METADATA and READ_FILE, but only grant > > > > > > READ_FILE. > > > > > > > > > > > > The program can technically open the file with the READ_FILE > > > > > > permission, > > > > > > but it may error out because the stat() on it beforehand failed. > > > > > > It's pretty common for programs to do that kind of thing (stat > > > > > > before > > > > > > open), like for checking for config files (strace bash and you see > > > > > > it > > > > > > stat .profile, /etc/profile) > > > > > > > > > > > > There may be other bugs, because being able to set permissions to > > > > > > read > > > > > > a file *but not read it's metadata* isn't possible currently in > > > > > > posix > > > > > > acl and userspace may not work well if that assumption no longer > > > > > > holds. > > > > > > > > > > * posix acl and linux DAC. > > > > > > > > > > So maybe WRITE_METADATA is good enough? > > > > > > > > > > The existing use cases are the combinations of (a) READ_DIR > > > > > allowed/denied and (b) READ_METADATA allowed/denied. Because these > > > > > two access rights overlap slightly, it seems likely that for a given > > > > > directory or file, users will want to either grant both, or deny both. > > > > > > > > > > At the moment, where the (not yet existing) READ_METADATA is > > > > > implicitly always allowed, the problematic case is the one where the > > > > > Landlock user wants to deny READ_DIR, but where much of the same > > > > > metadata is still available through stat() and the various > > > > > get-attribute syscalls. (c.f. the warning box in the Landlock docs > > > > > [1]) > > > > > > > > > > In my view the READ_METADATA right closes a gap that READ_DIR left > > > > > open (which is also potentially surprising to callers if they did not > > > > > read the docs closely). Also, if its implementation is symmetric to > > > > > WRITE_METADATA, I feel that it's worth having it in the same patch > > > > > set. > > > > > > > > > > –Günther > > > > > > > > > > P.S.: I know, even after we can control stat(), there are likely ways > > > > > to infer the presence of a file by observing Landlock error codes. > > > > > This would be nice to fix as well, but is harder to do without > > > > > controlling the path walk itself [2]. But also, the fact that this is > > > > > currently not controllable is not an excuse for leaving READ_METADATA > > > > > open IMHO. > > > > > > > > > I'm still sort of concerned about the case where read access is allowed, > > > > but metadata isn't, due to how many applications will not cleanly handle > > > > such an unexpected condition. You can reproduce this with a seccomp > > > > policy forbidding stat(). > > > > > > > > Would it make sense to have the existing READ rights > > > > (READ_DIR/READ_FILE) imply READ_METADATA on the files/directories > > > > if READ_METADATA is handled? Reading a file's contents should always > > > > imply that you can read the metadata. > > > > > > I am wary of situations where the handling of access rights implicity > > > implies other access rights. We have discussed such schemes in the > > > past (e.g. we considered a design for RESOLVE_UNIX where we'd have > > > both a "scoped" and a "access_fs" right that would interact with each > > > other), but in the end we always settled for approaches where such > > > interactions would not be necessary. One of the concerns was that it > > > would complicate "best effort" fallback logic in all Landlock > > > libraries and in the countless places where people use the syscalls > > > directly. > > > > > > To throw another option in the mix. (To be clear, I have only 70% > > > confidence, so feel free to push back, but it feels like it might > > > work?): > > > > > > Is this similar to the "truncate" right? > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > > > With "truncate", there was an existing common operation (open(2) with > > > O_TRUNC, a.k.a. creat(2)) which called the truncation hook and checked > > > for the truncation access right. But that was in fact OK. The way we > > > resolved it at the time was by documenting very loudly that WRITE_FILE > > > and TRUNCATE access rights should always be requested in lockstep, if > > > TRUNCATE is handled. > > > > > > If READ_DIR and READ_FILE do in fact read and return metadata to the > > > user, maybe the right thing would be to do it the same way here and > > > *require* that we have READ_METADATA to do these operations? > > > > > > (READ_METADATA is automatically allowed as long as it's not handled, > > > so that approach does not break existing programs. Programs who > > > consciously start handling READ_METADATA must simply take into account > > > that reading directories and opening files for reading requires > > > READ_METADATA.) > > > > > > (BTW, I can see it for reading directories, but I am not sure I fully > > > follow the argument why opening files for reading means that you can > > > read the metadata? Can't that be guarded on fstat()-like operations?) > > > > > Many standard libraries will call stat before / after opening a file to > > allocate a buffer matching the file size. Or to figure out if mmap > > is more efficient than opening it directly. > > > > So Python's open().read() or Go's os.ReadFile they may throw an error > > when opening the file, making it look as if the file is inaccessible > > when its contents are. They make the assumption that if a file is > > readable, the metadata is too. > > > > There's also a lot of metadata that is already leaked by just having > > READ_FILE. FS_IOC_GETFLAGS/FS_IOC_FSGETXATTR ioctl / fileattr_get are > > unrestrictable and allow you to see inode attributes. There's also > > access(2) which isn't restricted here and allows you to see your rights > > on the file. The size can be found by simply seeking to the beginning > > and end. So much of the metadata is obtainable with just READ_DIR/READ_FILE. > > > > ... > > > > Another problem I'm just realizing is that this READ_METADATA > > right is inconsistent with open file descriptor behavior. With most > > rights, already open file descriptors are exempted, but here, fstat, > > (and the other stat-family calls which takes a file descriptor) become > > denied even on already open files. It's a catch 22 here, if you change > > the fstat to not apply to opened files, then READ_FILE becomes a bypass > > for READ_METADATA. But if you leave it as is, then it's inconsistent with > > the other Landlock rights wrt already opened files. > > Indeed, these access rights should follow the > LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE mechanic. > Ahh good idea. Forgot about that! So associate the READ_METADATA right with the fd at open time like with truncate. > > > > Which isn't the end of the world, but just shows that either > > approach is going to have it's quirks. > > > > I think it would be better to just avoid the cat and mouse game here > > of trying to seperate READ_FILE/READ_METADATA and either require > > READ_METADATA be specified with READ_FILE if READ_METADATA is handled > > like Gunther proposed, or have READ_FILE imply READ_METADATA. > > > > Documenting it strongly is OK too, but really there are really zero > > usecases where you'd want to grant READ_FILE without READ_METADATA > > so it would need to be made extremely clear. > > What about a program that just need to read files? We can think about > sanboxes such as those used in web browsers, but that applies to other > tailored processes that don't need/want to access metadata e.g., for > confidentiality or personal information (UID, timestamp) concerns. > > This is similar to FILE_WRITE vs. TRUNCATE: most of the time we want > them to be grouped. > Your argument is persuasive :)
I still have open questions about file_getattr(2) and the FS_* ioctls above, which I don't think are handled by this READ_METADATA right. access(2) is a seperate question, but I'm unsure if that's worth it/in scope for restricting. (I think WRITE_METADTA also doesn't handle file_setattr(2) and the FS_IOC_FSSETFLAGS ioctls) Justin > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > > > > —Günther > >
