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: 10+ 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
2026-11-12 23:25 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-11-08 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] selftests/landlock: Test that layering does not break refer Günther Noack
2026-11-12 23:25 ` Mickaël Salaün [this message]
2026-11-08 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] landlock: Simplify landlock_get_fs_access_mask() Günther Noack
2026-11-12 23:25 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-11-08 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] landlock: Clarify implicit handling of LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER Günther Noack
2026-11-12 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox