From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
To: "Günther Noack" <gnoack3000@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Dwi Siswanto <me@dw1.io>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] selftests/landlock: Test that layering does not break refer
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2026 00:25:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261113.eivahj2ohKae@digikod.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261108-b4-landlock-refer-nonfs-layer-v2-2-2b405fc1b3aa@gmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 08, 2026 at 09:23:49PM +0100, Günther Noack wrote:
> Regression test to exercise that layered Landlock domains do not
> accidentally deny the LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER access right. This
> used to be the case when layering a non-filesystem ruleset with a
> filesystem-enforcing ruleset. In that case, REFER operations that
> would have been allowed for the individual rulesets would get denied
> when layering the same rulesets.
>
> Link: https://github.com/landlock-lsm/linux/issues/67
> Link: https://github.com/landlock-lsm/go-landlock/issues/66
> Signed-off-by: Günther Noack <gnoack3000@gmail.com>
This test patch should also be backported (Cc stable@ + Fixes).
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c
> index f725882fa4a7..b92cb988a39f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c
> @@ -2612,6 +2612,45 @@ TEST_F_FORK(layout1, refer_denied_by_default4)
> layer_dir_s1d1_refer);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Regression test for layered domains: The two enforced Landlock layers both do
> + * not restrict the tested "refer" operations on their own, so they should also
> + * not restrict them when they are layered.
> + */
> +static void test_layering_does_not_break_refer(
> + struct __test_metadata *const _metadata,
> + const struct landlock_ruleset_attr *const non_fs_attr)
> +{
> + ASSERT_EQ(0, unlink(file1_s1d2));
> +
> + enforce_fs(_metadata, LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER, layer_dir_s1d1_refer);
> +
> + drop_access_rights(_metadata, non_fs_attr);
> +
> + EXPECT_EQ(0, test_rename(file1_s1d1, file1_s1d2));
> + EXPECT_EQ(0, test_rename(file1_s1d2, file1_s1d1));
> + EXPECT_EQ(0, test_exchange(file2_s1d1, file2_s1d2));
> + EXPECT_EQ(0, test_exchange(file2_s1d2, file2_s1d1));
> +}
> +
> +TEST_F_FORK(layout1, layering_with_net_does_not_break_refer)
> +{
> + const struct landlock_ruleset_attr attr = {
> + .handled_access_net = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP,
> + };
> +
> + test_layering_does_not_break_refer(_metadata, &attr);
> +}
> +
> +TEST_F_FORK(layout1, layering_with_scoped_does_not_break_refer)
> +{
> + const struct landlock_ruleset_attr attr = {
> + .scoped = LANDLOCK_SCOPE_SIGNAL,
> + };
> +
> + test_layering_does_not_break_refer(_metadata, &attr);
> +}
This looks good, but it would be better to also exercise both
layer-construction orders for non-FS categories (e.g. FS then scope, and
scope then FS). That would confirm patch 3 is good.
> +
> /*
> * Tests walking through a denied root mount.
> */
>
> --
> 2.56.0
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-12 23:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-08 20:23 [PATCH v2 0/4] landlock: Fix REFER in layered domains Günther Noack
2026-11-08 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] landlock: Fix layer composition of LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER Günther Noack
2026-11-08 20:34 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-12 23:25 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-11-08 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] selftests/landlock: Test that layering does not break refer Günther Noack
2026-11-08 20:31 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-12 23:25 ` Mickaël Salaün [this message]
2026-11-08 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] landlock: Simplify landlock_get_fs_access_mask() Günther Noack
2026-11-08 20:29 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-12 23:25 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-11-08 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] landlock: Clarify implicit handling of LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER Günther Noack
2026-11-08 20:32 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-12 23:28 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-11-12 23:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] landlock: Fix REFER in layered domains Mickaël Salaün
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20261113.eivahj2ohKae@digikod.net \
--to=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=gnoack3000@gmail.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=me@dw1.io \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.