On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 09:42:50PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:

From: Mickaël Salaün <redacted>

Test all Landlock system calls, ptrace hooks semantic and filesystem
access-control with multiple layouts.

Test coverage for security/landlock/ is 93.6% of lines.  The code not
covered only deals with internal kernel errors (e.g. memory allocation)
and race conditions.

Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <redacted>
Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Vincent Dagonneau <redacted>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210316204252.427806-11-mic@digikod.net (local)

This is terrific. I love the coverage. How did you measure this, BTW?
To increase it into memory allocation failures, have you tried
allocation fault injection:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/fault-injection/fault-injection.html

[...]
+TEST(inconsistent_attr) {
+	const long page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
+	char *const buf = malloc(page_size + 1);
+	struct landlock_ruleset_attr *const ruleset_attr = (void *)buf;
+
+	ASSERT_NE(NULL, buf);
+
+	/* Checks copy_from_user(). */
+	ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr, 0, 0));
+	/* The size if less than sizeof(struct landlock_attr_enforce). */
+	ASSERT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);
+	ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr, 1, 0));
+	ASSERT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);

Almost everywhere you're using ASSERT instead of EXPECT. Is this correct
(in the sense than as soon as an ASSERT fails the rest of the test is
skipped)? I do see you using EXPECT is some places, but I figured I'd
ask about the intention here.

+/*
+ * TEST_F_FORK() is useful when a test drop privileges but the corresponding
+ * FIXTURE_TEARDOWN() requires them (e.g. to remove files from a directory
+ * where write actions are denied).  For convenience, FIXTURE_TEARDOWN() is
+ * also called when the test failed, but not when FIXTURE_SETUP() failed.  For
+ * this to be possible, we must not call abort() but instead exit smoothly
+ * (hence the step print).
+ */

Hm, interesting. I think this should be extracted into a separate patch
and added to the test harness proper.

Could this be solved with TEARDOWN being called on SETUP failure?

+#define TEST_F_FORK(fixture_name, test_name) \
+	static void fixture_name##_##test_name##_child( \
+		struct __test_metadata *_metadata, \
+		FIXTURE_DATA(fixture_name) *self, \
+		const FIXTURE_VARIANT(fixture_name) *variant); \
+	TEST_F(fixture_name, test_name) \
+	{ \
+		int status; \
+		const pid_t child = fork(); \
+		if (child < 0) \
+			abort(); \
+		if (child == 0) { \
+			_metadata->no_print = 1; \
+			fixture_name##_##test_name##_child(_metadata, self, variant); \
+			if (_metadata->skip) \
+				_exit(255); \
+			if (_metadata->passed) \
+				_exit(0); \
+			_exit(_metadata->step); \
+		} \
+		if (child != waitpid(child, &status, 0)) \
+			abort(); \
+		if (WIFSIGNALED(status) || !WIFEXITED(status)) { \
+			_metadata->passed = 0; \
+			_metadata->step = 1; \
+			return; \
+		} \
+		switch (WEXITSTATUS(status)) { \
+		case 0: \
+			_metadata->passed = 1; \
+			break; \
+		case 255: \
+			_metadata->passed = 1; \
+			_metadata->skip = 1; \
+			break; \
+		default: \
+			_metadata->passed = 0; \
+			_metadata->step = WEXITSTATUS(status); \
+			break; \
+		} \
+	} \

This looks like a subset of __wait_for_test()? Could __TEST_F_IMPL() be
updated instead to do this? (Though the fork overhead might not be great
for everyone.)

-- 
Kees Cook