[RFC PATCH v4 00/15] Landlock LSM
Mickaël Salaün
mic at digikod.net
Thu Mar 17 17:26:45 UTC 2022
On 17/03/2022 14:01, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>
>
> 3/15/2022 8:02 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>> Hi Konstantin,
>>
>> This series looks good! Thanks for the split in multiple patches.
>>
> Thanks. I follow your recommendations.
>>
>> On 09/03/2022 14:44, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This is a new V4 bunch of RFC patches related to Landlock LSM network
>>> confinement.
>>> It brings deep refactirong and commit splitting of previous version V3.
>>> Also added additional selftests.
>>>
>>> This patch series can be applied on top of v5.17-rc3.
>>>
>>> All test were run in QEMU evironment and compiled with
>>> -static flag.
>>> 1. network_test: 9/9 tests passed.
>>
>> I get a kernel warning running the network tests.
>
> What kind of warning? Can you provide it please?
You really need to get a setup that gives you such kernel warning. When
running network_test you should get:
WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 742 at security/landlock/ruleset.c:218
insert_rule+0x220/0x270
Before sending new patches, please make sure you're able to catch such
issues.
>>
>>> 2. base_test: 8/8 tests passed.
>>> 3. fs_test: 46/46 tests passed.
>>> 4. ptrace_test: 4/8 tests passed.
>>
>> Does your test machine use Yama? That would explain the 4/8. You can
>> disable it with the appropriate sysctl.
Can you answer this question?
>>
>>>
>>> Tests were also launched for Landlock version without
>>> v4 patch:
>>> 1. base_test: 8/8 tests passed.
>>> 2. fs_test: 46/46 tests passed.
>>> 3. ptrace_test: 4/8 tests passed.
>>>
>>> Could not provide test coverage cause had problems with tests
>>> on VM (no -static flag the tests compiling, no v4 patch applied):
>>
>> You can build statically-linked tests with:
>> make -C tools/testing/selftests/landlock CFLAGS=-static
>
> Ok. I will try. Thanks.
>>
>>> 1. base_test: 7/8 tests passed.
>>> Error:
>>> # Starting 8 tests from 1 test cases.
>>> # RUN global.inconsistent_attr ...
>>> # base_test.c:51:inconsistent_attr:Expected ENOMSG (42) == errno (22)
>>
>> This looks like a bug in the syscall argument checks.
>
> This bug I just get when don't use -static option. With -static base
> test passes 8/8.
Weird, I'd like to know what is the cause of this issue. What disto and
version do you use as host and guest VM? Do you have some warning when
compiling?
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list