Hi，
在 2022/8/23 3:26, Günther Noack 写道:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:46:59PM +0800, Xiu Jianfeng wrote:
+TEST_F_FORK(layout1, unhandled_chmod)
+{
+ const struct rule rules[] = {
+ {
+ .path = file2_s3d1,
+ .access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_READ_FILE |
+ LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_FILE,
+ },
+ {
+ .path = file3_s3d1,
+ .access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_READ_FILE |
+ LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_FILE,
+ },
+ {},
+ };
+ const int ruleset_fd =
+ create_ruleset(_metadata, ACCESS_RW, rules);
+
+ ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
+ enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd);
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, test_chmod(file2_s3d1));
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, test_fchmod(file2_s3d1));
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, test_chmod(file3_s3d1));
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, test_chmod(dir_s3d1));
+}
I missed it in the previous mail:
There are also the chown variants lchown() and fchownat(), as well as
the chmod variant fchmodat(), which might be interesting to test,
especially the symlink scenarios.
fchmodat() has a AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag which does the chmod
equivalent to lchown().
man fchmodat shows as follows:
...
AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW
If pathname is a symbolic link, do not dereference it: instead operate
on the link itself. This flag is not currently implemented.
...
so I suppose this can not be test. Please correct me if I am wrong.
thanks.
--
.
