Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:09:54 +0300
From: "Konstantin Meskhidze (A)" <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
CC: <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, <gnoack3000@...il.com>,
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, <yusongping@...wei.com>,
	<artem.kuzin@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 10/12] selftests/landlock: Add 7 new test variants
 dedicated to network



10/20/2023 6:40 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:41:42PM +0300, Konstantin Meskhidze (A) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 10/18/2023 3:32 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>> > You can update the subject with:
>> > "selftests/landlock: Add network tests"
>> 
>> Ok.
>> > 
>> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 09:50:28AM +0800, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>> > > These test suites try to check edge cases for TCP sockets
>> > > bind() and connect() actions.
>> > 
>> > You can replace with that:
>> > Add 77 test suites to check edge cases related to bind() and connect()
>> > actions. They are defined with 6 fixtures and their variants:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > protocol:
>> > > * bind: Tests with non-landlocked/landlocked ipv4, ipv6 and unix sockets.
>> > 
>> > As you already did, you can write one paragraph per fixture, but
>> > starting by explaining the fixture and its related variants, and then
>> > listing the tests and explaining their specificities. For instance:
>> > 
>> > The "protocol" fixture is extended with 12 variants defined as a matrix
>> > of: sandboxed/not-sandboxed, IPv4/IPv6/unix network domain, and
>> > stream/datagram socket. 4 related tests suites are defined:
>> > * bind: Test bind combinations with increasingly more
>> >    restricting domains.
>> > * connect: Test connect combinations with increasingly more
>> >    restricting domains.
>> > ...
>> 
>>   Ok. Will be updated.
>> > 
>> > s/ipv/IPv/g
>> 
>>   Got it. Thanks.
>> > 
>> > > * connect: Tests with non-landlocked/landlocked ipv4, ipv6 and unix
>> > > sockets.
>> > > * bind_unspec: Tests with non-landlocked/landlocked restrictions
>> > > for bind action with AF_UNSPEC socket family.
>> > > * connect_unspec: Tests with non-landlocked/landlocked restrictions
>> > > for connect action with AF_UNSPEC socket family.
>> > > 
>> > > ipv4:
>> > > * from_unix_to_inet: Tests to make sure unix sockets' actions are not
>> > > restricted by Landlock rules applied to TCP ones.
>> > > 
>> > > tcp_layers:
>> > > * ruleset_overlap.
>> > > * ruleset_expand.
>> > > 
>> > > mini:
>> > > * network_access_rights: Tests with  legitimate access values.
>> > > * unknown_access_rights: Tests with invalid attributes, out of access range.
>> > > * inval:
>> > >     - unhandled allowed access.
>> > >     - zero access value.
>> > > * tcp_port_overflow: Tests with wrong port values more than U16_MAX.
>> > > 
>> > > ipv4_tcp:
>> > > * port_endianness: Tests with big/little endian port formats.
>> > > 
>> > > port_specific:
>> > > * bind_connect: Tests with specific port values.
>> > > 
>> > > layout1:
>> > > * with_net: Tests with network bind() socket action within
>> > > filesystem directory access test.
>> > > 
>> > > Test coverage for security/landlock is 94.5% of 932 lines according
>> > > to gcc/gcov-11.
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>
>> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230920092641.832134-11-konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com
>> > > Co-developed-by:: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
>> > > ---
>> > > 
>> > > Changes since v12:
>> > > * Renames port_zero to port_specific fixture.
>> > > * Refactors port_specific test:
>> > >     - Adds set_port() and get_binded_port() helpers.
>> > >     - Adds checks for port 0, allowed by Landlock in this version.
>> > >     - Adds checks for port 1023.
>> > > * Refactors commit message.
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > +static void set_port(struct service_fixture *const srv, in_port_t port)
>> > > +{
>> > > +	switch (srv->protocol.domain) {
>> > > +	case AF_UNSPEC:
>> > > +	case AF_INET:
>> > > +		srv->ipv4_addr.sin_port = port;
>> > 
>> > We should call htons() here, and make port a uint16_t.
>> 
>>   Done.
>> > 
>> > > +		return;
>> > > +
>> > > +	case AF_INET6:
>> > > +		srv->ipv6_addr.sin6_port = port;
>> > > +		return;
>> > > +
>> > > +	default:
>> > > +		return;
>> > > +	}
>> > > +}
>> > > +
>> > > +static in_port_t get_binded_port(int socket_fd,
>> > 
>> > The returned type should be uint16_t (i.e. host endianess).
>> 
>>   Done.
>> > 
>> > > +				 const struct protocol_variant *const prot)
>> > > +{
>> > > +	struct sockaddr_in ipv4_addr;
>> > > +	struct sockaddr_in6 ipv6_addr;
>> > > +	socklen_t ipv4_addr_len, ipv6_addr_len;
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Gets binded port. */
>> > > +	switch (prot->domain) {
>> > > +	case AF_UNSPEC:
>> > > +	case AF_INET:
>> > > +		ipv4_addr_len = sizeof(ipv4_addr);
>> > > +		getsockname(socket_fd, &ipv4_addr, &ipv4_addr_len);
>> > > +		return ntohs(ipv4_addr.sin_port);
>> > > +
>> > > +	case AF_INET6:
>> > > +		ipv6_addr_len = sizeof(ipv6_addr);
>> > > +		getsockname(socket_fd, &ipv6_addr, &ipv6_addr_len);
>> > > +		return ntohs(ipv6_addr.sin6_port);
>> > > +
>> > > +	default:
>> > > +		return 0;
>> > > +	}
>> > > +}
>> > 
>> > These are good helpers!
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > +FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(ipv4)
>> > > +{
>> > > +}
>> > > +
>> > > +// Kernel FIXME: tcp_sandbox_with_tcp and tcp_sandbox_with_udp
>> > 
>> > No FIXME should remain.
>> 
>>   Ok. Deleted.
>> > 
>> > > +TEST_F(ipv4, from_unix_to_inet)
>> > 
>> > > +TEST_F(mini, network_access_rights)
>> > > +{
>> > > +	const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
>> > > +		.handled_access_net = ACCESS_ALL,
>> > > +	};
>> > > +	struct landlock_net_port_attr net_service = {
>> > 
>> > Please rename to "net_port" everywhere.
>> 
>>   Done.
>> > 
>> > > +TEST_F(port_specific, bind_connect)
>> > > +{
>> > > +	int socket_fd, ret;
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Adds the first rule layer with bind and connect actions. */
>> > > +	if (variant->sandbox == TCP_SANDBOX) {
>> > > +		const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
>> > > +			.handled_access_net = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP |
>> > > +					      LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP
>> > > +		};
>> > > +		const struct landlock_net_port_attr tcp_bind_connect_zero = {
>> > > +			.allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP |
>> > > +					  LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP,
>> > > +			.port = htons(0),
>> > 
>> > We don't need any htons() calls anymore. It doesn't change the 0 value
>> > in this case but this is not correct.
>> 
>>  Yep. We call htons(port) in landlock_append_net_rule().
>>  Thanks.
>> > 
>> > > +		};
>> > > +
>> > 
>> > Useless new line.
>> 
>>   Ok. Thanks.
>> > 
>> > > +		int ruleset_fd;
>> > > +
>> > > +		ruleset_fd = landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr,
>> > > +						     sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);
>> > > +		ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
>> > > +
>> > > +		/* Checks zero port value on bind and connect actions. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0,
>> > > +			  landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_PORT,
>> > > +					    &tcp_bind_connect_zero, 0));
>> > > +
>> > > +		enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd);
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
>> > > +	}
>> > > +
>> > > +	socket_fd = socket_variant(&self->srv0);
>> > > +	ASSERT_LE(0, socket_fd);
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Sets address port to 0 for both protocol families. */
>> > > +	set_port(&self->srv0, htons(0));
>> > 
>> > ditto
>> > 
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Binds on port 0. */
>> > > +	ret = bind_variant(socket_fd, &self->srv0);
>> > > +	if (is_restricted(&variant->prot, variant->sandbox)) {
>> > > +		/* Binds to a random port within ip_local_port_range. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>> > > +	} else {
>> > > +		/* Binds to a random port within ip_local_port_range. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>> > 
>> > If the results are the same, no need to add an if block.
>> 
>>   Right. Updated.
>> > 
>> > > +	}
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Connects on port 0. */
>> > > +	ret = connect_variant(socket_fd, &self->srv0);
>> > > +	if (is_restricted(&variant->prot, variant->sandbox)) {
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(-ECONNREFUSED, ret);
>> > > +	} else {
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(-ECONNREFUSED, ret);
>> > > +	}
>> > 
>> > ditto
>> > 
>>  Updated.
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Binds on port 0. */
>> > 
>> > Please close sockets once they are used, and recreate one for another
>> > bind/connect to avoid wrong checks.
>> 
>>   Ok. But I can reuse socket_fd after closeing a socket. Correct?
> 
> It would be clearer to have one variable for the client socket
> (connect_fd) and another variable for the server socket (bind_fd).
> But once the socket is closed, you can reuse the same variable by
> storing a new socket in it. You then only need two variables for sockets
> in this test.

  Ok. Thanks.
> 
>> > 
>> > > +	ret = bind_variant(socket_fd, &self->srv0);
>> > > +	if (is_restricted(&variant->prot, variant->sandbox)) {
>> > > +		/* Binds to a random port within ip_local_port_range. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>> > > +	} else {
>> > > +		/* Binds to a random port within ip_local_port_range. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>> > > +	}
>> > 
>> > Why this second bind() block? Furthermore, it is using the same
>> > socket_fd.
> 
> Is this block useful?

   For a self-connected socket after connection try we need to rebind it 
again. I checked this logic in a small standalone test (with gdb on). So 
for 2 sockets (differnt fds) there is no need to do that.
> 
>> 
>>   I will refactor the code this way -  sockets will be recreated for each
>> bind/connect, and I prefer to use self-connected sockets (use one socket
>> descriptor) in these tests to make code simpler; testing logic remains the
>> same way as if we have 2 sockets.
>> 
>> What do you think???
> 
> I find it confusing to use self-connected sockets, it's not clear at all
> what is going on, and AFAIK it doesn't reflect real use cases. Please
> don't do that.
> 
> Using the same variable for both bind and connect socket will lead to
> issues difficult to debug, and leaked FDs. For instance with the bind +
> get_binded_port + connect test you should use one variable per socket.
> To make it easier to read, please follow this rule everywhere (the only
> case when this is done seems to be with the port_specific.bind_connect
> test).

   OK. I will use 2 fds for bind and connect sockets.
> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Sets binded port for both protocol families. */
>> > > +	set_port(&self->srv0,
>> > > +		 htons(get_binded_port(socket_fd, &variant->prot)));
>> > 
>> > Ditto, these two endianess translations are useless.
>> 
>>   Updated. Thanks.
>> > 
>> > You can also add this to make sure the returned port is not 0:
>> > port = get_binded_port(socket_fd, &variant->prot);
>> > EXPECT_NE(0, port);
>> > set_port(&self->srv0, port);
>> 
>>   Ok. Thanks for the tip.
>> > 
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Connects on the binded port. */
>> > > +	ret = connect_variant(socket_fd, &self->srv0);
>> > > +	if (is_restricted(&variant->prot, variant->sandbox)) {
>> > > +		/* Denied by Landlock. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(-EACCES, ret);
>> > > +	} else {
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>> > > +	}
>> > > +
>> > > +	EXPECT_EQ(0, close(socket_fd));
>> > > +
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > +	/* Adds the second rule layer with just bind action. */
>> > 
>> > There is not only bind actions here.
>> 
>>   Right.
>> > 
>> > This second part of the tests should be in a dedicated
>> > TEST_F(port_specific, bind_1023).
>> 
>>   Got it.
>> > 
>> > > +	if (variant->sandbox == TCP_SANDBOX) {
>> > > +		const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
>> > > +			.handled_access_net = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP |
>> > > +					      LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP
>> > > +		};
>> > > +
>> > > +		const struct landlock_net_port_attr tcp_bind_zero = {
>> > > +			.allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP,
>> > > +			.port = htons(0),
>> > > +		};
>> > > +
>> > 
>> > Useless new lines.
>> 
>>   Got it.
>> > 
>> > > +		/* A rule with port value less than 1024. */
>> > > +		const struct landlock_net_port_attr tcp_bind_lower_range = {
>> > > +			.allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP,
>> > > +			.port = htons(1023),
>> > > +		};
>> > > +
>> > 
>> > Useless new line.
>> 
>>   Got it.
>> > 
>> > > +		int ruleset_fd;
>> > > +
>> > > +		ruleset_fd = landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr,
>> > > +						     sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);
>> > > +		ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
>> > > +
>> > > +		ASSERT_EQ(0,
>> > > +			  landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_PORT,
>> > > +					    &tcp_bind_lower_range, 0));
>> > > +		ASSERT_EQ(0,
>> > > +			  landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_PORT,
>> > > +					    &tcp_bind_zero, 0));
>> > > +
>> > > +		enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd);
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
>> > > +	}
>> > > +
>> > > +	socket_fd = socket_variant(&self->srv0);
>> > 
>> > We must have one socket FD dedicated to bind an another dedicated to
>> > connect, e.g. bind_fd and connect_fd, an close them after each use,
>> > otherwise tests might be inconsistent.
>> 
>>   Why can't we use self-connected sockets here? Why tests might be
>> inconsistent? Tests will be working the same way as if we have 2 sockets,
>> plus the code is simpler.
> 
> AFAIK it doesn't reflect real use cases of sockets, and I find it really
> confusing. Where did you see this kind of usage?
> 
> Test might be inconsistent for instance if you change the port from 1023
> to 1024 and you adjust the (denied by system) EXPECT_EQ(-EACCES, ret),
> you'll get a new error in the following block, which doesn't make sense
> at first, but then you realize it is because the socket is already
> binded.  To avoid this kind of issues, and avoid leaking FDs, please use
> a socket per usage and close them before testing something else.

  Ok. Got it.
> 
>> > 
>> > > +	ASSERT_LE(0, socket_fd);
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Sets address port to 1023 for both protocol families. */
>> > > +	set_port(&self->srv0, htons(1023));
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Binds on port 1023. */
>> > > +	ret = bind_variant(socket_fd, &self->srv0);
>> > > +	if (is_restricted(&variant->prot, variant->sandbox)) {
>> > 
>> > No need to add this check if the result is the same for sandboxed and
>> > not sandboxed tests.
>> 
>>  Ok. Thanks.
>> > 
>> > Instead, use set_cap(_metadata, CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE) and clear_cap()
>> > around this bind_variant() to make this test useful.
>> > 
>> > You will also need to patch common.h like this:
>> > @@ -112,10 +112,13 @@ static void _init_caps(struct __test_metadata *const _metadata, bool drop_all)
>> >          cap_t cap_p;
>> >          /* Only these three capabilities are useful for the tests. */
>> >          const cap_value_t caps[] = {
>> > +               /* clang-format off */
>> >                  CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE,
>> >                  CAP_MKNOD,
>> >                  CAP_SYS_ADMIN,
>> >                  CAP_SYS_CHROOT,
>> > +               CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE,
>> > +               /* clang-format on */
>> >          };
>> 
>>  OK. Thanks.
>> > 
>> > > +		/* Denied by the system. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(-EACCES, ret);
>> > > +	} else {
>> > > +		/* Denied by the system. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(-EACCES, ret);
>> > > +	}
>> > > +
>> > 
>> > I don't see why the following part is useful. Why did you add it?
>>   Binding to ports < 1024 are forbidden by the system, not by Landlock.
>>   I added a rule with port 1023 to make sure it works as expected.
> 
> Landlock, as any LSM, can only add more restrictions. That's why it
> would make more sense to test with CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE, to make sure
> Landlock rules work the same with this kind of privileged ports, but you
> can test both cases (all within the same TEST_F though, and without
> other tests).

  Do you mean during the test to set CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE, check it with 
landlock (it will success), then switch  CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE cap off 
and bind it again ( will be refused by the system)?
Am I correct?
> 
>> 
>> > Why tcp_bind_zero?
>>    Beacause it's a bind action with port zero rule.
> 
> Yes but I don't see why it's relevant to test that here, because it was
> tested just before.
> 
   OK. I just leave binding to 1023 port here.
   I'm thinking to add binding to 1024 port then to show that this port 
is allowed by the system but denied by landlock ( we have just rule with 
1023 port).
   What do you think?
>> 
>> > 
>> > The other parts are good though!
>> > 
>> > > +	/* Sets address port to 0 for both protocol families. */
>> > > +	set_port(&self->srv0, htons(0));
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Binds on port 0. */
>> > > +	ret = bind_variant(socket_fd, &self->srv0);
>> > > +	if (is_restricted(&variant->prot, variant->sandbox)) {
>> > > +		/* Binds to a random port within ip_local_port_range. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>> > > +	} else {
>> > > +		/* Binds to a random port within ip_local_port_range. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>> > > +	}
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Sets binded port for both protocol families. */
>> > > +	set_port(&self->srv0,
>> > > +		 htons(get_binded_port(socket_fd, &variant->prot)));
>> > > +
>> > > +	/* Connects on the binded port. */
>> > > +	ret = connect_variant(socket_fd, &self->srv0);
>> > > +	if (is_restricted(&variant->prot, variant->sandbox)) {
>> > > +		/* Denied by Landlock. */
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(-EACCES, ret);
>> > > +	} else {
>> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(0, ret);
>> > > +	}
>> > > +
>> > > +	EXPECT_EQ(0, close(socket_fd));
>> > > +}
>> > > +
>> > > +TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
>> > > --
>> > > 2.25.1
>> > > 
>> > .
> .

Powered by blists - more mailing lists