8/20/2024 3:31 PM, Günther Noack wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 11:01:46AM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
Add a test for listening restriction. It's similar to protocol.bind and
protocol.connect tests.
Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c
index 8126f5c0160f..b6fe9bde205f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c
@@ -689,6 +689,50 @@ TEST_F(protocol, connect)
restricted, restricted);
}
+TEST_F(protocol, listen)
+{
+ if (variant->sandbox == TCP_SANDBOX) {
+ const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
+ .handled_access_net = ACCESS_ALL,
+ };
+ const struct landlock_net_port_attr tcp_not_restricted_p0 = {
+ .allowed_access = ACCESS_ALL,
+ .port = self->srv0.port,
+ };
+ const struct landlock_net_port_attr tcp_denied_listen_p1 = {
+ .allowed_access = ACCESS_ALL &
+ ~LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_LISTEN_TCP,
+ .port = self->srv1.port,
+ };
+ int ruleset_fd;
+
+ ruleset_fd = landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr,
+ sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);
Nit: The declaration and the assignment of ruleset_fd can be merged into one
line and made const. (Not a big deal, but it was done a bit more consistently
in the rest of the code, I think.)
Current variant is performed in every TEST_F() method. I assume that
this is required in order to not make a mess by combining the
ruleset_attr and several rule structures with the operation of creating
ruleset. WDYT?
+ ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
+
+ /* Allows all actions for the first port. */
+ ASSERT_EQ(0,
+ landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_PORT,
+ &tcp_not_restricted_p0, 0));
+
+ /* Allows all actions despite listen. */
+ ASSERT_EQ(0,
+ landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_PORT,
+ &tcp_denied_listen_p1, 0));
+
+ enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd);
+ EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
+ }
This entire "if (variant->sandbox == TCP_SANDBOX)" conditional does the exact
same thing as the one from patch 5/9. Should that (or parts of it) get
extracted into a suitable helper?
I don't think replacing
if (variant->sandbox == TCP_SANDBOX)
with
if (is_tcp_sandbox(variant))
will change anything, this condition is already quite simple. If
you think that such helper is more convenient, I can add it.
+ bool restricted = is_restricted(&variant->prot, variant->sandbox);
+
+ test_restricted_net_fixture(_metadata, &self->srv0, false, false,
+ false);
+ test_restricted_net_fixture(_metadata, &self->srv1, false, false,
+ restricted);
+ test_restricted_net_fixture(_metadata, &self->srv2, restricted,
+ restricted, restricted);
If we start having logic and conditionals in the test implementation (in this
case, in test_restricted_test_fixture()), this might be a sign that that test
implementation should maybe be split apart? Once the test is as complicated as
the code under test, it does not simplify our confidence in the code much any
more?
(It is often considered bad practice to put conditionals in tests, e.g. in
https://testing.googleblog.com/2014/07/testing-on-toilet-dont-put-logic-in.html)
Do you think we have a way to simplify that?
I agree.. using 3 external booleans to control behavior of the
test is really messy. I believe the best we can do to avoid this is to
split "test_restricted_net_fixture()" into few independent tests. For
example we can turn this call:
test_restricted_net_fixture(_metadata, &self->srv0, false,
false, false);
into multiple smaller tests:
/* Tries to bind with invalid and minimal addrlen. */
EXPECT_EQ(0, TEST_BIND(&self->srv0));
/* Tries to connect with invalid and minimal addrlen. */
EXPECT_EQ(0, TEST_CONNECT(&self->srv0));
/* Tries to listen. */
EXPECT_EQ(0, TEST_LISTEN(&self->srv0));
/* Connection tests. */
EXPECT_EQ(0, TEST_CLIENT_SERVER(&self->srv0));
Each test is wrapped in a macro that implicitly passes _metadata argument.
This case in which every access is allowed can be wrapped in a macro:
TEST_UNRESTRICTED_NET_FIXTURE(&self->srv0);
Such approach has following cons though:
* A lot of duplicated code. These small helpers should be added to every
test that uses "test_restricted_net_fixture()". Currently there
are 16 calls of this helper.
* There is wouldn't be a single entity that is used to test a network
under different sandbox scenarios. If we split the helper each test
should care about (1) sandboxing, (2) running all required tests. For
example TEST_LISTEN() and TEST_CLIENT_SERVER() could not be called if
bind is restricted.
For example protocol.bind test would have following lines after
"test_restricted_net_fixture()" is removed:
TEST_UNRESTRICTED_NET_FIXTURE(&self->srv0);
if (is_restricted(&variant->prot, variant->sandbox)) {
EXPECT_EQ(-EACCES, TEST_BIND(&self->srv1));
EXPECT_EQ(0, TEST_CONNECT(&self->srv1));
EXPECT_EQ(-EACCES, TEST_BIND(&self->srv2));
EXPECT_EQ(-EACCES, TEST_CONNECT(&self->srv2));
} else {
TEST_UNRESTRICTED_NET_FIXTURE(&self->srv1);
TEST_UNRESTRICTED_NET_FIXTURE(&self->srv2);
}
I suggest leaving "test_restricted_net_fixture()" and refactor this
booleans (in the way you suggested) in order not to lose simplicity in
the testing:
bool restricted = is_restricted(&variant->prot,
variant->sandbox);
test_restricted_net_fixture(_metadata, &self->srv0,
(struct expected_net_enforcement){
.deny_bind = false,
.deny_connect = false,
.deny_listen = false
});
test_restricted_net_fixture(_metadata, &self->srv1,
(struct expected_net_enforcement){
.deny_bind = false,
.deny_connect = restricted,
.deny_listen = false
});
test_restricted_net_fixture(_metadata, &self->srv2,
(struct expected_net_enforcement){
.deny_bind = restricted,
.deny_connect = restricted,
.deny_listen = restricted
});
But it's really not obvious design issue and splitting helper can really
be a better solution. WDYT?
Readability remark: I am not that strongly invested in this idea, but in the
call to test_restricted_net_fixture(), it is difficult to understand "false,
false, false", without jumping around in the file. Should we try to make this
more explicit?
I wonder whether we should just pass a struct, so that everything at least has a
name?
test_restricted_net_fixture((struct expected_net_enforcement){
.deny_bind = false,
.deny_connect = false,
.deny_listen = false,
});
Then it would be clearer which boolean is which,
and you could use the fact that unspecified struct fields are zero-initialized?
(Alternatively, you could also spell out error codes here, instead of booleans.)
Agreed, this is a best option for refactoring.
I've also tried adding access_mask field to the service_fixture struct
with all accesses allowed by default. In a test, then you just need to
remove the necessary accesses after sandboxing:
if (is_restricted(&variant->prot, variant->sandbox))
clear_access(&self->srv2,
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP |
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP);
test_restricted_net_fixture(_metadata, &self->srv2);
But this solution is too implicit for the helper. Passing struct would
be better.
+}
+
TEST_F(protocol, bind_unspec)
{
const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
--
2.34.1
—Günther
