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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230920092641.832134-11-konstantin.meskhidze@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Co-developed-by:: Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > > > 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?
