From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
To: "Konstantin Meskhidze (A)" <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
Cc: "Günther Noack" <gnoack@google.com>,
"James Morris" <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Paul Moore" <paul@paul-moore.com>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
"Artem Kuzin" <artem.kuzin@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] selftests/landlock: Add tests to check unhandled rule's access rights
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:18:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231130.phie3zeek9Oh@digikod.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b5b268a8-7da4-34b6-978f-9c7a3dcae73f@huawei.com>
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:04:02AM +0300, Konstantin Meskhidze (A) wrote:
>
>
> 11/20/2023 10:39 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
> > Add two tests to make sure that we cannot add a rule to a ruleset if the
> > rule's access rights that are not handled by the ruleset:
> > * fs: layout1.rule_with_unhandled_access
> > * net: mini.rule_with_unhandled_access
> >
> > Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack@google.com>
> > Cc: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c
> > index d77155d75de5..8cabcbe3554e 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c
> > @@ -596,6 +596,41 @@ TEST_F_FORK(layout1, file_and_dir_access_rights)
> > ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
> > }
> > +TEST_F_FORK(layout1, rule_with_unhandled_access)
> > +{
> > + struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
> > + /* First bit */
> > + .handled_access_fs = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_EXECUTE,
> > + };
> > + struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath = {};
> > + int ruleset_fd;
> > + __u64 access;
> > +
> > + ruleset_fd =
> > + landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);
> > + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
> > +
> > + path_beneath.parent_fd = open(file1_s1d2, O_PATH | O_CLOEXEC);
> > + ASSERT_LE(0, path_beneath.parent_fd);
> > +
> > + for (access = 1; access > 0; access <<= 1) {
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + path_beneath.allowed_access = access;
> > + err = landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH,
> > + &path_beneath, 0);
> > + if (access == ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs) {
> > + EXPECT_EQ(0, err);
> > + } else {
> > + EXPECT_EQ(-1, err);
> > + EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + EXPECT_EQ(0, close(path_beneath.parent_fd));
> > + EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
> > +}
> > +
> > TEST_F_FORK(layout0, unknown_access_rights)
> > {
> > __u64 access_mask;
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c
> > index 9356f5800e31..aec01917abd5 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c
> > @@ -1262,6 +1262,39 @@ TEST_F(mini, network_access_rights)
> > EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
> > }
> > +TEST_F(mini, rule_with_unhandled_access)
> > +{
> > + struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
> > + /* First bit */
> > + .handled_access_net = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP,
> > + };
> > + struct landlock_net_port_attr net_port = {
> > + .port = sock_port_start,
> > + };
> > + int ruleset_fd;
> > + __u64 access;
> > +
> > + ruleset_fd =
> > + landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);
> > + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
> > +
> > + for (access = 1; access > 0; access <<= 1) {
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + net_port.allowed_access = access;
> > + err = landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_PORT,
> > + &net_port, 0);
> > + if (access == ruleset_attr.handled_access_net) {
> > + EXPECT_EQ(0, err);
> > + } else {
> > + EXPECT_EQ(-1, err);
> > + EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> We have such kind of check in TEST_f(mini, inval). Can you please explain
> why we need additional one here?
This doesn't test the same thing. This new test checks that a only known
access rights can be added, which should be a subset of the handled
access rights. This is mostly useful to check consistency with the
synthetic/private access rights Günther is working on.
> > +
> > + EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
> > +}
> > +
> > /* Checks invalid attribute, out of landlock network access range. */
> > TEST_F(mini, unknown_access_rights)
> > {
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-30 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-20 19:39 [PATCH v1 0/2] Extend Landlock test to improve rule's coverage Mickaël Salaün
2023-11-20 19:39 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] selftests/landlock: Add tests to check undefined rule's access rights Mickaël Salaün
2023-11-24 17:07 ` Günther Noack
2023-11-30 9:17 ` Mickaël Salaün
2023-11-20 19:39 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] selftests/landlock: Add tests to check unhandled " Mickaël Salaün
2023-11-24 17:12 ` Günther Noack
2023-11-30 9:17 ` Mickaël Salaün
2023-11-27 8:04 ` Konstantin Meskhidze (A)
2023-11-30 9:18 ` Mickaël Salaün [this message]
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=20231130.phie3zeek9Oh@digikod.net \
--to=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=artem.kuzin@huawei.com \
--cc=gnoack@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).