Re: [RFC PATCH v3 07/19] selftests/landlock: Test adding a rule for empty access

["Günther Noack" <gnoack@google.com>]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 06:48:12PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> Add test that validates behaviour of Landlock after rule with
> empty access is added.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@huawei-partners.com>
> ---
> Changes since v2:
> * Renames protocol.inval into protocol.rule_with_empty_access.
> * Replaces ASSERT_EQ with EXPECT_EQ for landlock_add_rule().
> * Closes ruleset_fd.
> * Refactors commit message and title.
> * Minor fixes.
> 
> Changes since v1:
> * Refactors commit message.
> ---
>  .../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c  | 33 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> index d2fedfca7193..d323f649a183 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> @@ -384,4 +384,37 @@ TEST_F(protocol, rule_with_unhandled_access)
>  	ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
>  }
>  
> +TEST_F(protocol, rule_with_empty_access)
> +{
> +	const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
> +		.handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE
> +	};
> +	struct landlock_socket_attr protocol_allowed = {
> +		.allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
> +		.family = self->prot.family,
> +		.type = self->prot.type,
> +	};
> +	struct landlock_socket_attr protocol_denied = {
> +		.allowed_access = 0,
> +		.family = self->prot.family,
> +		.type = self->prot.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 value. */
> +	EXPECT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET,
> +				       &protocol_allowed, 0));

In my mind, the check with the legitimate rule is probably already done in other
places and does not strictly need to be duplicated here.

But up to you, it's fine either way. :)

Reviewed-by: Günther Noack <gnoack@google.com>

> +
> +	ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
> +}
> +
>  TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>