netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/12] selftests/landlock: Add protocol.socket_access

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZlTyj_0g-E4oM22G@google.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 22:52:31 +0200
From: "Günther Noack" <gnoack@...gle.com>
To: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@...wei-partners.com>
Cc: mic@...ikod.net, 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, konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/12] selftests/landlock: Add protocol.socket_access_rights
 to socket tests

Hello!

I see that this test is adapted from the network_access_rights test in
net_test.c, and some of the subsequent are similarly copied from there.  It
makes it hard to criticize the code, because being a little bit consistent is
probably a good thing.  Have you found any opportunities to extract
commonalities into common.h?

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 05:30:07PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> Add test that checks possibility of adding rule with every possible
> access right.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@...wei-partners.com>
> ---
> 
> Changes since v1:
> * Formats code with clang-format.
> * Refactors commit message.
> ---
>  .../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c  | 28 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> index 4c51f89ed578..eb5d62263460 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> @@ -178,4 +178,32 @@ TEST_F(protocol, create)
>  	ASSERT_EQ(EAFNOSUPPORT, test_socket(&self->unspec_srv0));
>  }
>  
> +TEST_F(protocol, socket_access_rights)
> +{
> +	const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
> +		.handled_access_socket = ACCESS_ALL,
> +	};
> +	struct landlock_socket_attr protocol = {
> +		.family = self->srv0.protocol.family,
> +		.type = self->srv0.protocol.type,
> +	};
> +	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 <= ACCESS_LAST; access <<= 1) {
> +		protocol.allowed_access = access;
> +		EXPECT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET,
> +					       &protocol, 0))
> +		{
> +			TH_LOG("Failed to add rule with access 0x%llx: %s",
> +			       access, strerror(errno));
> +		}
> +	}
> +	EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));

Reviewed-by: Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com>

P.S. We are inconsistent with our use of EXPECT/ASSERT for test teardown.  The
fs_test.c uses ASSERT_EQ in these places whereas net_test.c and your new tests
use EXPECT_EQ.

It admittedly does not make much of a difference for close(), so should be OK.
Some other selftests are even ignoring the result for close().  If we want to
make it consistent in the Landlock tests again, we can also do it in an
independent sweep.

I filed a small cleanup task as a reminder:
https://github.com/landlock-lsm/linux/issues/31

—Günther