On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 05:30:10PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> Add test that validates behavior of landlock with fully
> access restriction.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Changes since v1:
> * Refactors commit message.
> ---
> .../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> index 31af47de1937..751596c381fe 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> @@ -265,4 +265,38 @@ TEST_F(protocol, rule_with_unhandled_access)
> EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
> }
>
> +TEST_F(protocol, inval)
> +{
> + const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
> + .handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE
> + };
> +
> + struct landlock_socket_attr protocol = {
> + .allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
> + .family = self->srv0.protocol.family,
> + .type = self->srv0.protocol.type,
> + };
> +
> + struct landlock_socket_attr protocol_denied = {
> + .allowed_access = 0,
> + .family = self->srv0.protocol.family,
> + .type = self->srv0.protocol.type,
> + };
> +
> + int ruleset_fd;
> +
> + ruleset_fd =
> + landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);
> + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
> +
> + /* Checks zero access value. */
> + EXPECT_EQ(-1, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET,
> + &protocol_denied, 0));
> + EXPECT_EQ(ENOMSG, errno);
> +
> + /* Adds with legitimate values. */
> + ASSERT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET,
> + &protocol, 0));
> +}
> +
> TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Code is based on TEST_F(mini, inval) from net_test.c. I see that you removed
the check for unhandled allowed_access, because there is already a separate
TEST_F(mini, rule_with_unhandled_access) for that.
That is true for the "legitimate value" case as well, though...? We already
have a test for that too. Should that also get removed?
Should we then rename the "inval" test to "rule_with_zero_access", so that the
naming is consistent with the "rule_with_unhandled_access" test?
—Günther
