On 9/18/2024 3:42 PM, Günther Noack wrote:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 06:48:12PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
Add test that validates behaviour of Landlock after rule with
empty access is added.
Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes since v2:
* Renames protocol.inval into protocol.rule_with_empty_access.
* Replaces ASSERT_EQ with EXPECT_EQ for landlock_add_rule().
* Closes ruleset_fd.
* Refactors commit message and title.
* Minor fixes.
Changes since v1:
* Refactors commit message.
---
.../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
index d2fedfca7193..d323f649a183 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
@@ -384,4 +384,37 @@ TEST_F(protocol, rule_with_unhandled_access)
ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
}
+TEST_F(protocol, rule_with_empty_access)
+{
+ const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
+ .handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE
+ };
+ struct landlock_socket_attr protocol_allowed = {
+ .allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
+ .family = self->prot.family,
+ .type = self->prot.type,
+ };
+ struct landlock_socket_attr protocol_denied = {
+ .allowed_access = 0,
+ .family = self->prot.family,
+ .type = self->prot.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 value. */
+ EXPECT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET,
+ &protocol_allowed, 0));
In my mind, the check with the legitimate rule is probably already done in other
places and does not strictly need to be duplicated here.
But up to you, it's fine either way. :)
This test is a duplicate of mini.inval from net_test.c. I thought this
line can be useful to check that adding rule with zero access does not
affect Landlock behavior of adding a line with legitimate value. But
this is a really weak reason and I'd like to remove this line for
simplicity. Thank you!
Reviewed-by: Günther Noack <gnoack@xxxxxxxxxx>
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
+}
+
TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
--
2.34.1
