Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/12] selftests/landlock: Add protocol.inval to socket tests
From: "Günther Noack" <gnoack@google.com>
Date: 2024-05-27 21:27:31
Also in:
linux-security-module, netfilter-devel
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 05:30:10PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Add test that validates behavior of landlock with fully access restriction. Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <redacted> --- Changes since v1: * Refactors commit message. --- .../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c index 31af47de1937..751596c381fe 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c@@ -265,4 +265,38 @@ TEST_F(protocol, rule_with_unhandled_access) EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd)); } +TEST_F(protocol, inval) +{ + const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = { + .handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE + }; + + struct landlock_socket_attr protocol = { + .allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE, + .family = self->srv0.protocol.family, + .type = self->srv0.protocol.type, + }; + + struct landlock_socket_attr protocol_denied = { + .allowed_access = 0, + .family = self->srv0.protocol.family, + .type = self->srv0.protocol.type, + }; + + int ruleset_fd; + + ruleset_fd = + landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0); + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd); + + /* Checks zero access value. */ + EXPECT_EQ(-1, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET, + &protocol_denied, 0)); + EXPECT_EQ(ENOMSG, errno); + + /* Adds with legitimate values. */ + ASSERT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET, + &protocol, 0)); +} + TEST_HARNESS_MAIN-- 2.34.1
Code is based on TEST_F(mini, inval) from net_test.c. I see that you removed the check for unhandled allowed_access, because there is already a separate TEST_F(mini, rule_with_unhandled_access) for that. That is true for the "legitimate value" case as well, though...? We already have a test for that too. Should that also get removed? Should we then rename the "inval" test to "rule_with_zero_access", so that the naming is consistent with the "rule_with_unhandled_access" test? —Günther