5/27/2024 6:27 PM, Günther Noack wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 05:30:06PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
Initiate socket_test.c selftests. Add protocol fixture for tests
with changeable family-type values. Only most common variants of
protocols (like ipv4-tcp,ipv6-udp, unix) were added.
Add simple socket access right checking test.
Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes since v1:
* Replaces test_socket_create() and socket_variant() helpers
with test_socket().
* Renames domain to family in protocol fixture.
* Remove AF_UNSPEC fixture entry and add unspec_srv0 fixture field to
check AF_UNSPEC socket creation case.
* Formats code with clang-format.
* Refactors commit message.
---
.../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c | 181 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 181 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..4c51f89ed578
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/*
+ * Landlock tests - Socket
+ *
+ * Copyright © 2024 Huawei Tech. Co., Ltd.
+ * Copyright © 2024 Microsoft Corporation
It looked to me like these patches came from Huawei?
Was this left by accident?
Yeah, second line should be removed. Thanks!
+ */
+
+#define _GNU_SOURCE
+
+#include <errno.h>
+#include <linux/landlock.h>
+#include <sched.h>
+#include <string.h>
+#include <sys/prctl.h>
+#include <sys/socket.h>
+
+#include "common.h"
+
+/* clang-format off */
+
+#define ACCESS_LAST LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE
+
+#define ACCESS_ALL ( \
+ LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE)
+
+/* clang-format on */
It does not look like clang-format would really mess up this format in a bad
way. Maybe we can remove the "clang-format off" section here and just write the
"#define"s on one line?
You're right, I'll fix it
ACCESS_ALL is unused in this commit.
Should it be introduced in a subsequent commit instead?
Indeed, thanks
+static int test_socket(const struct service_fixture *const srv)
+{
+ int fd;
+
+ fd = socket(srv->protocol.family, srv->protocol.type | SOCK_CLOEXEC, 0);
+ if (fd < 0)
+ return errno;
+ /*
+ * Mixing error codes from close(2) and socket(2) should not lead to any
+ * (access type) confusion for this test.
+ */
+ if (close(fd) != 0)
+ return errno;
+ return 0;
+}
I personally find that it helps me remember if these test helpers have the same
signature as the syscall that they are exercising. (But I don't feel very
strongly about it. Just a suggestion.)
You're right, in this case test_socket() would be more clear.
I'll fix it.
[...]
+TEST_F(protocol, create)
+{
+ const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
+ .handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
+ };
+ const struct landlock_socket_attr create_socket_attr = {
+ .allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
+ .family = self->srv0.protocol.family,
+ .type = self->srv0.protocol.type,
+ };
+
+ int ruleset_fd;
+
+ /* Allowed create */
+ 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,
+ &create_socket_attr, 0));
+
+ enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd);
+ EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, test_socket(&self->srv0));
+ ASSERT_EQ(EAFNOSUPPORT, test_socket(&self->unspec_srv0));
+
+ /* Denied create */
+ ruleset_fd =
+ landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);
+ ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
+
+ enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd);
+ EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_socket(&self->srv0));
+ ASSERT_EQ(EAFNOSUPPORT, test_socket(&self->unspec_srv0));
Should we exhaustively try out the other combinations (other than selv->srv0)
here? I assume socket() should always fail for these?
Do you mean testing all supported protocols? AFAICS this will require
adding ~80 FIXTURE_VARIANTs, but it won't be an issue if you think that
it can be useful.
(If you are alredy doing this in another commit that I have not looked at yet,
please ignore this comment.)
—Günther
