5/28/2024 12:27 AM, Günther Noack wrote:
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?
I thought that "legitimate value" case is needed to check that adding
a zero-access rule doesn't affect landlock behavior when adding correct
rules. Do you think it's not worth it?
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?
Definitely, thanks!
—Günther
