[RFC PATCH v3 13/19] selftests/landlock: Test packet protocol alias
Mikhail Ivanov
ivanov.mikhail1 at huawei-partners.com
Wed Sep 18 14:01:34 UTC 2024
On 9/18/2024 4:33 PM, Günther Noack wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 06:48:18PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
>> (AF_INET, SOCK_PACKET) is an alias for (AF_PACKET, SOCK_PACKET)
>> (Cf. __sock_create). Landlock shouldn't restrict one pair if the other
>> was allowed. Add `packet_protocol` fixture and test to
>> validate these scenarios.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1 at huawei-partners.com>
>> ---
>> .../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
>> index 23698b8c2f4d..8fc507bf902a 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c
>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>>
>> #define _GNU_SOURCE
>>
>> -#include "landlock.h"
>> +#include <linux/landlock.h>
>> #include <linux/pfkeyv2.h>
>> #include <linux/kcm.h>
>> #include <linux/can.h>
>> @@ -665,4 +665,77 @@ TEST(kernel_socket)
>> EXPECT_EQ(0, test_socket(AF_SMC, SOCK_STREAM, 0));
>> }
>>
>> +FIXTURE(packet_protocol)
>> +{
>> + struct protocol_variant prot_allowed, prot_tested;
>> +};
>> +
>> +FIXTURE_VARIANT(packet_protocol)
>> +{
>> + bool packet;
>> +};
>> +
>> +FIXTURE_SETUP(packet_protocol)
>> +{
>> + self->prot_allowed.type = self->prot_tested.type = SOCK_PACKET;
>> +
>> + self->prot_allowed.family = variant->packet ? AF_PACKET : AF_INET;
>> + self->prot_tested.family = variant->packet ? AF_INET : AF_PACKET;
>
> Nit: You might as well write these resulting prot_allowed and prot_tested struct
> values out in the two fixture variants. It's one layer of indirection less and
> clarity trumps deduplication in tests, IMHO. Fine either way though.
Agreed, thanks!
>
>
>> +
>> + /* Packet protocol requires NET_RAW to be set (Cf. packet_create). */
>> + set_cap(_metadata, CAP_NET_RAW);
>> +};
>> +
>> +FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(packet_protocol)
>> +{
>> + clear_cap(_metadata, CAP_NET_RAW);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* clang-format off */
>> +FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD(packet_protocol, packet_allows_inet) {
>> + /* clang-format on */
>> + .packet = true,
>> +};
>> +
>> +/* clang-format off */
>> +FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD(packet_protocol, inet_allows_packet) {
>> + /* clang-format on */
>> + .packet = false,
>> +};
>> +
>> +TEST_F(packet_protocol, alias_restriction)
>> +{
>> + const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
>> + .handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
>> + };
>> + struct landlock_socket_attr packet_socket_create = {
>> + .allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE,
>> + .family = self->prot_allowed.family,
>> + .type = self->prot_allowed.type,
>> + };
>> + int ruleset_fd;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Checks that packet socket is created sucessfuly without
>
> Typo nit: "successfully"
>
> Please also check in other locations, I might well have missed some ;-)
Of course, sorry for that)
>
>> + * landlock restrictions.
>> + */
>> + ASSERT_EQ(0, test_socket_variant(&self->prot_tested));
>> +
>> + ruleset_fd =
>> + landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);
>> + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
>> +
>> + ASSERT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET,
>> + &packet_socket_create, 0));
>> + enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd);
>> + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * (AF_INET, SOCK_PACKET) is an alias for the (AF_PACKET, SOCK_PACKET)
>> + * (Cf. __sock_create). Checks that Landlock does not restrict one pair
>> + * if the other was allowed.
>> + */
>> + EXPECT_EQ(0, test_socket_variant(&self->prot_tested));
>
> Why not check both AF_INET and AF_PACKET in both fixtures?
> Since they are synonymous, they should both work, no matter which
> of the two variants was used in the rule.
>
> It would be slightly more comprehensive and make the fixture smaller.
> WDYT?
Agreed, prot_tested should be removed.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>
> —Günther
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list