[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3a33baf2-3de7-fecd-29d3-715500e3631f@digikod.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:30:10 +0100
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>
Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, yusongping@...wei.com,
artem.kuzin@...wei.com, anton.sirazetdinov@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/15] Landlock LSM
On 24/03/2022 14:34, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>
>
> 3/24/2022 3:27 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>
>> On 23/03/2022 17:30, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 3/17/2022 8:26 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>>
>>>> On 17/03/2022 14:01, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3/15/2022 8:02 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>>>> Hi Konstantin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This series looks good! Thanks for the split in multiple patches.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks. I follow your recommendations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/03/2022 14:44, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> This is a new V4 bunch of RFC patches related to Landlock LSM
>>>>>>> network confinement.
>>>>>>> It brings deep refactirong and commit splitting of previous
>>>>>>> version V3.
>>>>>>> Also added additional selftests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch series can be applied on top of v5.17-rc3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All test were run in QEMU evironment and compiled with
>>>>>>> -static flag.
>>>>>>> 1. network_test: 9/9 tests passed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I get a kernel warning running the network tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of warning? Can you provide it please?
>>>>
>>>> You really need to get a setup that gives you such kernel warning.
>>>> When running network_test you should get:
>>>> WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 742 at security/landlock/ruleset.c:218
>>>> insert_rule+0x220/0x270
>>>>
>>>> Before sending new patches, please make sure you're able to catch
>>>> such issues.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. base_test: 8/8 tests passed.
>>>>>>> 3. fs_test: 46/46 tests passed.
>>>>>>> 4. ptrace_test: 4/8 tests passed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does your test machine use Yama? That would explain the 4/8. You
>>>>>> can disable it with the appropriate sysctl.
>>>>
>>>> Can you answer this question?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tests were also launched for Landlock version without
>>>>>>> v4 patch:
>>>>>>> 1. base_test: 8/8 tests passed.
>>>>>>> 2. fs_test: 46/46 tests passed.
>>>>>>> 3. ptrace_test: 4/8 tests passed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could not provide test coverage cause had problems with tests
>>>>>>> on VM (no -static flag the tests compiling, no v4 patch applied):
>>>>>>
>>> Hi, Mickaёl!
>>> I tried to get base test coverage without v4 patch applied.
>>>
>>> 1. Kernel configuration :
>>> - CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=y
>>> - CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL=y
>>> - CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL=y
>>> 2. Added GCOV_PROFILE := y in security/landlock/Makefile
>>
>> I think this is useless because of CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL=y.
>> I don't add GCOV_PROFILE anyway.
>>
>>
>>> 3. Compiled kernel and rebooted VM with the new one.
>>> 4. Run landlock selftests as root user:
>>> $ cd tools/testing/selftests/landlock
>>> $ ./base_test
>>> $ ./fs_test
>>> $ ./ptrace_test
>>> 5. Copied GCOV data to some folder :
>>> $ cp -r
>>> /sys/kernel/debug/gcov/<source-dir>/linux/security/landlock/
>>> /gcov-before
>>> $ cd /gcov-before
>>> $ lcov -c -d ./landlock -o lcov.info && genhtml -o html lcov.info
>>
>> I do this step on my host but that should work as long as you have the
>> kernel sources in the same directory. I guess this is not the case. I
>> think you also need GCC >= 4.8 .
>> I found the reason why .gcda files were not executed :
> "lcov -c -d ./landlock -o lcov.info && genhtml -o html lcov.info"
> was run not under ROOT user.
> Running lcov by ROOT one solved the issue. I will provide network test
> coverage in RFC patch V5.
> Thanks for help anyway.
I run lcov as a normal user with kernel source access.
I'll review the other patches soon. But for the next series, please
don't reuse "Landlock LSM" as a cover letter subject, something like
"Network support for Landlock" would fit better. ;)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists