[RFC PATCH v3 07/19] selftests/landlock: Test adding a rule for empty access

[Mikhail Ivanov]

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 at huawei-partners.com>
>> ---
>> 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 at google.com>
> 
>> +
>> +	ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
>> +}
>> +
>>   TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>