public inbox for linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
To: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
Cc: "Tingmao Wang" <m@maowtm.org>,
	"Günther Noack" <gnoack@google.com>,
	"Justin Suess" <utilityemal77@gmail.com>,
	"Jan Kara" <jack@suse.cz>, "Abhinav Saxena" <xandfury@gmail.com>,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v7 10/10] landlock: Implement KUnit test for LANDLOCK_ADD_RULE_NO_INHERIT
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2026 15:32:01 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260412193214.87072-11-utilityemal77@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260412193214.87072-1-utilityemal77@gmail.com>

Add a unit test for rule_flag collection, ensuring that access masks
are properly propagated with the flags.

Signed-off-by: Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
---

Notes:
    v6..v7 changes:
    
      * None
    
    v4..v6 changes:
    
      * None
    
    v2..v3 changes:
    
      * Removed erroneously misplaced code and placed it in the proper
        patch.

 security/landlock/ruleset.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 85 insertions(+)

diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.c b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
index 8fdba3a7f983..7bc5000e7485 100644
--- a/security/landlock/ruleset.c
+++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
 #include <linux/workqueue.h>
 #include <uapi/linux/landlock.h>
+#include <kunit/test.h>
 
 #include "access.h"
 #include "domain.h"
@@ -753,3 +754,87 @@ landlock_init_layer_masks(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
 
 	return handled_accesses;
 }
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK_KUNIT_TEST
+
+/**
+ * test_unmask_layers_no_inherit - Test landlock_unmask_layers() with no_inherit
+ * @test: The KUnit test context.
+ */
+static void test_unmask_layers_no_inherit(struct kunit *const test)
+{
+	struct landlock_rule *rule;
+	struct layer_access_masks layer_masks = {};
+	struct collected_rule_flags rule_flags;
+	const access_mask_t access_request = BIT_ULL(0) | BIT_ULL(1);
+	size_t i;
+
+	rule = kzalloc(struct_size(rule, layers, 2), GFP_KERNEL);
+	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, rule);
+
+	rule->num_layers = 2;
+
+	/* Layer 1: allows access 0, no_inherit */
+	rule->layers[0].level = 1;
+	rule->layers[0].access = BIT_ULL(0);
+	rule->layers[0].flags.no_inherit = 1;
+
+	/* Layer 2: allows access 1 */
+	rule->layers[1].level = 2;
+	rule->layers[1].access = BIT_ULL(1);
+
+	/* Case 1: No rule_flags provided (should behave normally) */
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(layer_masks.access); i++)
+		layer_masks.access[i] = access_request;
+
+	landlock_unmask_layers(rule, &layer_masks, NULL);
+
+	/* Access 0 should be unmasked by layer 1 */
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, layer_masks.access[0], access_request & ~BIT_ULL(0));
+	/* Access 1 should be unmasked by layer 2 */
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, layer_masks.access[1], access_request & ~BIT_ULL(1));
+
+	/* Case 2: rule_flags provided, no existing no_inherit_masks */
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(layer_masks.access); i++)
+		layer_masks.access[i] = access_request;
+	memset(&rule_flags, 0, sizeof(rule_flags));
+
+	landlock_unmask_layers(rule, &layer_masks, &rule_flags);
+
+	/* Access 0 should be unmasked by layer 1 */
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, layer_masks.access[0], access_request & ~BIT_ULL(0));
+	/* Access 1 should be unmasked by layer 2 */
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, layer_masks.access[1], access_request & ~BIT_ULL(1));
+
+	/* rule_flags should collect no_inherit from layer 1 */
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, rule_flags.no_inherit_masks, (layer_mask_t)BIT_ULL(0));
+
+	/* Case 3: rule_flags provided, layer 1 is masked by no_inherit_masks */
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(layer_masks.access); i++)
+		layer_masks.access[i] = access_request;
+	memset(&rule_flags, 0, sizeof(rule_flags));
+	rule_flags.no_inherit_masks = BIT_ULL(0); /* Mask layer 1 */
+
+	landlock_unmask_layers(rule, &layer_masks, &rule_flags);
+
+	/* Access 0 should NOT be unmasked by layer 1 because it is skipped */
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, layer_masks.access[0], access_request);
+	/* Access 1 should be unmasked by layer 2 */
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, layer_masks.access[1], access_request & ~BIT_ULL(1));
+
+	kfree(rule);
+}
+
+static struct kunit_case ruleset_test_cases[] = {
+	KUNIT_CASE(test_unmask_layers_no_inherit),
+	{}
+};
+
+static struct kunit_suite ruleset_test_suite = {
+	.name = "landlock_ruleset",
+	.test_cases = ruleset_test_cases,
+};
+
+kunit_test_suite(ruleset_test_suite);
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK_KUNIT_TEST */
-- 
2.53.0


      parent reply	other threads:[~2026-04-12 19:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-12 19:31 [PATCH v7 00/10] Implement LANDLOCK_ADD_RULE_NO_INHERIT Justin Suess
2026-04-12 19:31 ` [PATCH v7 01/10] landlock: Add path walk helper Justin Suess
2026-04-12 19:31 ` [PATCH v7 02/10] landlock: Use landlock_walk_path_up for is_access_to_paths_allowed Justin Suess
2026-04-12 19:31 ` [PATCH v7 03/10] landlock: Use landlock_walk_path_up for collect_domain_accesses Justin Suess
2026-04-12 19:31 ` [PATCH v7 04/10] landlock: Implement LANDLOCK_ADD_RULE_NO_INHERIT userspace api Justin Suess
2026-04-12 19:31 ` [PATCH v7 05/10] landlock: Move find_rule definition above landlock_append_fs_rule Justin Suess
2026-04-12 19:31 ` [PATCH v7 06/10] landlock: Implement LANDLOCK_ADD_RULE_NO_INHERIT Justin Suess
2026-04-12 19:31 ` [PATCH v7 07/10] landlock: Add documentation for LANDLOCK_ADD_RULE_NO_INHERIT Justin Suess
2026-04-12 19:31 ` [PATCH v7 08/10] samples/landlock: Add LANDLOCK_ADD_RULE_NO_INHERIT to landlock-sandboxer Justin Suess
2026-04-12 19:32 ` [PATCH v7 09/10] selftests/landlock: Implement selftests for LANDLOCK_ADD_RULE_NO_INHERIT Justin Suess
2026-04-12 19:32 ` Justin Suess [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=20260412193214.87072-11-utilityemal77@gmail.com \
    --to=utilityemal77@gmail.com \
    --cc=gnoack@google.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=m@maowtm.org \
    --cc=mic@digikod.net \
    --cc=xandfury@gmail.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