[PATCH v1 1/2] selftests/landlock: Add tests to check undefined rule's access rights
Mickaël Salaün
mic at digikod.net
Thu Nov 30 09:17:36 UTC 2023
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 06:07:05PM +0100, Günther Noack wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 08:39:13PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > Extend two tests to make sure that we cannot add a rule with access
> > rights that are undefined:
> > * fs: layout1.file_and_dir_access_rights
> > * net: mini.network_access_rights
> >
> > The checks test all 64 bits access right values until it overflows.
> >
> > Replace one ASSERT with EXPECT in layout1.file_and_dir_access_rights .
> >
> > Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack at google.com>
> > Cc: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze at huawei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic at digikod.net>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> > tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
> > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c
> > index 18e1f86a6234..d77155d75de5 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c
> > @@ -548,7 +548,6 @@ TEST_F_FORK(layout1, inval)
> > TEST_F_FORK(layout1, file_and_dir_access_rights)
> > {
> > __u64 access;
> > - int err;
> > struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_file = {},
> > path_beneath_dir = {};
> > struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
> > @@ -568,11 +567,19 @@ TEST_F_FORK(layout1, file_and_dir_access_rights)
> > open(dir_s1d2, O_PATH | O_DIRECTORY | O_CLOEXEC);
> > ASSERT_LE(0, path_beneath_dir.parent_fd);
> >
> > - for (access = 1; access <= ACCESS_LAST; access <<= 1) {
> > + for (access = 1; access > 0; access <<= 1) {
> > + int err;
> > +
> > path_beneath_dir.allowed_access = access;
> > - ASSERT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd,
> > - LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH,
> > - &path_beneath_dir, 0));
> > + err = landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH,
> > + &path_beneath_dir, 0);
> > + if (access <= ACCESS_LAST) {
> > + EXPECT_EQ(0, err);
> > + } else {
> > + EXPECT_EQ(-1, err);
> > + EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);
> > + continue;
> > + }
>
> Style question: why not have two loops next to each other? You could keep the
> old loop from 1 to ACCESS_LAST and then have a separate one from ACCESS_LAST+1
> onwards. Then you would not need to put logic inside the loop; it might reduce
> nesting a bit, and each loop individually might be slightly easier to grasp.
>
> I was initially a bit confused why the other landlock_add_rule() call for the
> directory doesn't need the same change. That is clear to me after looking at the
> code a few seconds longer, but it might be slightly simpler with two separate
> loops.
Indeed, I'll send a v2.
>
> But this is a minor nit.
>
> Reviewed-by: Günther Noack <gnoack at google.com>
>
> Thanks!
> —Günther
>
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list