[PATCH v2 0/6] Landlock: Implement scope control for pathname Unix sockets

[Mickaël Salaün]

On Sun, Feb 08, 2026 at 08:48:22PM +0000, Tingmao Wang wrote:
> On 2/8/26 20:37, Günther Noack wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 08, 2026 at 02:57:10AM +0000, Tingmao Wang wrote:
> >> On 2/5/26 10:27, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 09:02:19AM +0100, Günther Noack wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> The implementation of this approach would be that we would have to
> >>>> join the functionality from the scoped and FS-based patch set, but
> >>>> without introducing the LANDLOCK_SCOPE_PATHNAME_UNIX_SOCKET flag in
> >>>> the UAPI.
> >>>
> >>> Right, this looks good to me.  We'll need to sync both patch series and
> >>> remove the scope flag from UAPI.  I'll let you and Tingmao work together
> >>> for the next series.  The "IPC scoping" documentation section should
> >>> mention LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_RESOLVE_UNIX even if it's not a scope flag.
> >>
> >> This sounds good to me.  I'm not sure how much code we can reuse out of
> >> the existing LANDLOCK_SCOPE_PATHNAME_UNIX_SOCKET patchset - but I think
> >> the selftest patches could still largely be useful (after changing e.g.
> >> create_scoped_domain() to use the RESOLVE_UNIX fs access instead of the
> >> scope bit for pathname sockets).  The fs-based rules (i.e. "exceptions")
> >> can then be tested separately from the scope tests (and would also check
> >> for things like path being different across mount namespaces etc).
> >>
> >> Günther, feel free to take anything out of the existing scope series, if
> >> you feel it would be useful.  Also let me know if you would like me to
> >> help with any part of the RESOLVE_UNIX series if you feel that would be
> >> useful (but you don't have to if not).
> >
> > Thank you, Tingmao!
> >
> > So far, the selftests that I already had in fs_test.c were
> > straightforward to extend so that they cover the new cases.  I had a
> > look at your patch set, but found the scoping tests difficult to port
> > to fs_test.c
> 
> I was thinking that the tests in scoped_abstract_unix_test.c could be
> extended to test scoping of pathname UNIX sockets as well (otherwise
> wouldn't you have to write another instance of the scoped_domains test
> based on scoped_base_variants.h, whether you put it in fs_test.c or
> somewhere else?)
> 
> And if you think that is sensible, then I'm hoping that patch 4,5,6 of the
> series would be mostly useful.  But it's up to you :)

I agree that these 3 patches should be integrated (see my other reply on
Günther's v4).

> 
> > , but I'll double check that we don't miss anything.
> > Either way, I'll make sure that you'll get appropriate credit for
> > it. :)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Tingmao
> 
> > ...
>