[RFC PATCH v2 06/12] selftests/landlock: Add protocol.rule_with_unhandled_access to socket tests

[Günther Noack]

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 05:30:09PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> Add test that validates behavior of landlock after rule with
> unhandled access is added.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1 at huawei-partners.com>
> ---
> 
> 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 57d5927906b8..31af47de1937 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
> @@ -232,4 +232,37 @@ TEST_F(protocol, rule_with_unknown_access)
>  	EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
>  }
>  
> +TEST_F(protocol, rule_with_unhandled_access)
> +{
> +	struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
> +		.handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
> +	};
> +	struct landlock_socket_attr protocol = {
> +		.family = self->srv0.protocol.family,
> +		.type = self->srv0.protocol.type,
> +	};
> +	int ruleset_fd;
> +	__u64 access;
> +
> +	ruleset_fd =
> +		landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);
> +	ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
> +
> +	for (access = 1; access > 0; access <<= 1) {
> +		int err;
> +
> +		protocol.allowed_access = access;
> +		err = landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET,
> +					&protocol, 0);
> +		if (access == ruleset_attr.handled_access_socket) {
> +			EXPECT_EQ(0, err);
> +		} else {
> +			EXPECT_EQ(-1, err);
> +			EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
> +}
> +
>  TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>

Reviewed-by: Günther Noack <gnoack at google.com>

Like the commit before, this is copied from net_test.c and I don't want to
bikeshed around on code style which was discussed before.

Trying to factor out commonalities might also introduce additional layers of
indirection that would obscure what is happening.  I think it should be fine
like that despite it having some duplication.

—Günther