> that's why they're claiming them as their innovations?
I think they are just listing their specific implementations as innovations, their particular approach. Too many of what they list was definitely not an original idea, so they can't possible be suggesting otherwise. At least, I would hope not.
This is so plainly, and verifiably untrue, that it's almost funny. The patch series and kernel commit adding Landlock to the Linux kernel even references OpenBSD pledge(2)/unveil(2) as a source of inspiration.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/17ae69aba89dbfa2139...
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20210422154123...
I just found that email and the talk for the project myself and noted the author referenced pledge in another comment, but thought that could be due to the earlier OpenBSD release having gotten press, making it useful as a point of comparison.
I had honestly thought the landlock website or an earlier talk had pre-dated the release of OpenBSD 5.9, but I appear to have been wrong about that.
Landlock was released in Linux 5.13, in 2021. Pledge was released in OpenBSD 5.9, in 2016. As far as I'm aware, Pledge is the first of its kind.
I found the announcement email for Landlock posted to the lkml[1] where the author compares the project to Pledge. There's also his talk[2] from 2016 if you're interested. I was certain landlock predated pledge, as I thought the website or earliest talk was from late 2015, but I am less certain now, indeed I seem to have been wrong in my claim.
As for either being the first, at the very least Seatbelt from Apple has a paper dated 2011[3] and was released with macOS 10.5.
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/700607/
[2] https://archives.kernel-recipes.org/document/landlock-lsm-un...
[3] https://www.ise.io/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/apple-sandbox....
https://www.openbsd.org/papers/tame-fsec2015/
I'll concede that's less likely and I'm probably just wrong and misremembering though.