netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 12/19] selftests/landlock: Test socketpair(2) restriction

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: <20251122.4795c4c3bb03@gnoack.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 11:16:00 +0100
From: Günther Noack <gnoack3000@...il.com>
To: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@...wei-partners.com>
Cc: mic@...ikod.net, gnoack@...gle.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
	matthieu@...fet.re, 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 v4 12/19] selftests/landlock: Test socketpair(2)
 restriction

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:46:32PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> index e22e10edb103..d1a004c2e0f5 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> @@ -866,4 +866,59 @@ TEST_F(tcp_protocol, alias_restriction)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static int test_socketpair(int family, int type, int protocol)
> +{
> +	int fds[2];
> +	int err;
> +
> +	err = socketpair(family, type | SOCK_CLOEXEC, protocol, fds);
> +	if (err)
> +		return errno;
> +	/*
> +	 * Mixing error codes from close(2) and socketpair(2) should not lead to
> +	 * any (access type) confusion for this test.
> +	 */
> +	if (close(fds[0]) != 0)
> +		return errno;
> +	if (close(fds[1]) != 0)
> +		return errno;

Very minor nit: the function leaks an FD if it returns early after the
first close() call failed.  (Highly unlikely to happen though.)

> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +TEST_F(mini, socketpair)
> +{
> +	const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
> +		.handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
> +	};
> +	const struct landlock_socket_attr unix_socket_create = {
> +		.allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
> +		.family = AF_UNIX,
> +		.type = SOCK_STREAM,
> +		.protocol = 0,
> +	};
> +	int ruleset_fd;
> +
> +	/* Tries to create socket when ruleset is not established. */
> +	ASSERT_EQ(0, test_socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0));
> +	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_SOCKET,
> +				       &unix_socket_create, 0));
> +	enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd);
> +	ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
> +
> +	/* Tries to create socket when protocol is allowed */
> +	EXPECT_EQ(0, test_socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0));
> +
> +	ruleset_fd =
> +		landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);

You may want to check that landlock_create_ruleset() succeeded here:

ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd)

> +	enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd);
> +	ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
> +
> +	/* Tries to create socket when protocol is restricted. */
> +	EXPECT_EQ(EACCES, test_socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0));
> +}
> +
>  TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

Otherwise, looks good.
–Günther