[RFC PATCH v2 07/12] selftests/landlock: Add protocol.inval to socket tests

[Mikhail Ivanov]

5/28/2024 12:27 AM, Günther Noack wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 05:30:10PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
>> Add test that validates behavior of landlock with fully
>> access restriction.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1 at huawei-partners.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes since v1:
>> * Refactors commit message.
>> ---
>>   .../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c  | 34 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
>> index 31af47de1937..751596c381fe 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
>> @@ -265,4 +265,38 @@ TEST_F(protocol, rule_with_unhandled_access)
>>   	EXPECT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
>>   }
>>   
>> +TEST_F(protocol, inval)
>> +{
>> +	const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
>> +		.handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE
>> +	};
>> +
>> +	struct landlock_socket_attr protocol = {
>> +		.allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
>> +		.family = self->srv0.protocol.family,
>> +		.type = self->srv0.protocol.type,
>> +	};
>> +
>> +	struct landlock_socket_attr protocol_denied = {
>> +		.allowed_access = 0,
>> +		.family = self->srv0.protocol.family,
>> +		.type = self->srv0.protocol.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 values. */
>> +	ASSERT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET,
>> +				       &protocol, 0));
>> +}
>> +
>>   TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>
> 
> Code is based on TEST_F(mini, inval) from net_test.c.  I see that you removed
> the check for unhandled allowed_access, because there is already a separate
> TEST_F(mini, rule_with_unhandled_access) for that.
> 
> That is true for the "legitimate value" case as well, though...?  We already
> have a test for that too.  Should that also get removed?

I thought that "legitimate value" case is needed to check that adding
a zero-access rule doesn't affect landlock behavior when adding correct
rules. Do you think it's not worth it?

> 
> Should we then rename the "inval" test to "rule_with_zero_access", so that the
> naming is consistent with the "rule_with_unhandled_access" test?

Definitely, thanks!

> 
> —Günther