Hi，

在 2022/8/23 3:26, Günther Noack 写道:

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:46:59PM +0800, Xiu Jianfeng wrote:

quoted

+TEST_F_FORK(layout1, unhandled_chmod)
+{
+	const struct rule rules[] = {
+		{
+			.path = file2_s3d1,
+			.access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_READ_FILE |
+				  LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_FILE,
+		},
+		{
+			.path = file3_s3d1,
+			.access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_READ_FILE |
+				  LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_FILE,
+		},
+		{},
+	};
+	const int ruleset_fd =
+		create_ruleset(_metadata, ACCESS_RW, rules);
+
+	ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
+	enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd);
+	ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
+
+	ASSERT_EQ(0, test_chmod(file2_s3d1));
+	ASSERT_EQ(0, test_fchmod(file2_s3d1));
+	ASSERT_EQ(0, test_chmod(file3_s3d1));
+	ASSERT_EQ(0, test_chmod(dir_s3d1));
+}

I missed it in the previous mail:

There are also the chown variants lchown() and fchownat(), as well as
the chmod variant fchmodat(), which might be interesting to test,
especially the symlink scenarios.

fchmodat() has a AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag which does the chmod
equivalent to lchown().

man fchmodat shows as follows:
...
AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW
If pathname is a symbolic link, do not dereference it: instead operate 
on the link itself. This flag is not currently implemented.
...

so I suppose this can not be test. Please correct me if I am wrong.
thanks.

--
.