Message ID | 20240904104824.1844082-17-ivanov.mikhail1@huawei-partners.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | RFC |
Headers | show |
Series | Support socket access-control | expand |
Context | Check | Description |
---|---|---|
netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch, async |
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 06:48:21PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote: > Add test validating that socket creation with accept(2) is not restricted > by Landlock. > > Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@huawei-partners.com> > --- > .../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c > index 2ab27196fa3d..052dbe0d1227 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c > @@ -939,4 +939,75 @@ TEST_F(socket_creation, sctp_peeloff) > ASSERT_EQ(0, close(server_fd)); > } > > +TEST_F(socket_creation, accept) > +{ > + int status; > + pid_t child; > + struct sockaddr_in addr; > + int server_fd, client_fd; > + char buf; > + const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = { > + .handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE, > + }; > + struct landlock_socket_attr tcp_socket_create = { ^^^^^^ Could be const as well, just like the ruleset_attr? (I probably overlooked this as well in some of the other tests.) > + .allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE, > + .family = AF_INET, > + .type = SOCK_STREAM, > + }; > + > + server_fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM | SOCK_CLOEXEC, 0); > + ASSERT_LE(0, server_fd); > + > + addr.sin_family = AF_INET; > + addr.sin_port = htons(loopback_port); > + addr.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr(loopback_ipv4); > + > + ASSERT_EQ(0, bind(server_fd, &addr, sizeof(addr))); > + ASSERT_EQ(0, listen(server_fd, backlog)); > + > + child = fork(); > + ASSERT_LE(0, child); > + if (child == 0) { Nit: I feel like the child code would benefit from a higher level comment, like "Connects to the server once and exits." or such. > + /* Closes listening socket for the child. */ > + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(server_fd)); > + > + client_fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM | SOCK_CLOEXEC, 0); > + ASSERT_LE(0, client_fd); > + > + ASSERT_EQ(0, connect(client_fd, &addr, sizeof(addr))); > + EXPECT_EQ(1, write(client_fd, ".", 1)); > + > + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(client_fd)); > + _exit(_metadata->exit_code); > + return; > + } > + > + if (self->sandboxed) { > + int ruleset_fd = landlock_create_ruleset( > + &ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0); > + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd); > + if (self->allowed) { > + ASSERT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, > + LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET, > + &tcp_socket_create, 0)); > + } > + enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd); > + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd)); > + } > + > + client_fd = accept(server_fd, NULL, 0); > + > + /* accept(2) should not be restricted by Landlock. */ > + EXPECT_LE(0, client_fd); Should be an ASSERT, IMHO. If this fails, client_fd will be -1, and a lot of the stuff afterwards will fail as well. > + > + EXPECT_EQ(1, read(client_fd, &buf, 1)); > + EXPECT_EQ('.', buf); I'm torn on whether the "." write and the check for it is very useful in this test. It muddies the test's purpose a bit, and makes it harder to recognize the main use case. Might make the test a bit simpler to drop it. > + > + ASSERT_EQ(child, waitpid(child, &status, 0)); > + ASSERT_EQ(1, WIFEXITED(status)); > + ASSERT_EQ(EXIT_SUCCESS, WEXITSTATUS(status)); > + > + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(server_fd)); You are missing to close client_fd. > +} > + > TEST_HARNESS_MAIN > -- > 2.34.1 >
On 9/27/2024 5:53 PM, Günther Noack wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 06:48:21PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote: >> Add test validating that socket creation with accept(2) is not restricted >> by Landlock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@huawei-partners.com> >> --- >> .../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c >> index 2ab27196fa3d..052dbe0d1227 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c >> @@ -939,4 +939,75 @@ TEST_F(socket_creation, sctp_peeloff) >> ASSERT_EQ(0, close(server_fd)); >> } >> >> +TEST_F(socket_creation, accept) >> +{ >> + int status; >> + pid_t child; >> + struct sockaddr_in addr; >> + int server_fd, client_fd; >> + char buf; >> + const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = { >> + .handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE, >> + }; >> + struct landlock_socket_attr tcp_socket_create = { > ^^^^^^ > > Could be const as well, just like the ruleset_attr? > > (I probably overlooked this as well in some of the other tests.) Yeap, I'll fix this for each test. > > >> + .allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE, >> + .family = AF_INET, >> + .type = SOCK_STREAM, >> + }; >> + >> + server_fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM | SOCK_CLOEXEC, 0); >> + ASSERT_LE(0, server_fd); >> + >> + addr.sin_family = AF_INET; >> + addr.sin_port = htons(loopback_port); >> + addr.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr(loopback_ipv4); >> + >> + ASSERT_EQ(0, bind(server_fd, &addr, sizeof(addr))); >> + ASSERT_EQ(0, listen(server_fd, backlog)); >> + >> + child = fork(); >> + ASSERT_LE(0, child); >> + if (child == 0) { > > Nit: > I feel like the child code would benefit from a higher level comment, > like "Connects to the server once and exits." or such. Agreed, I'll add this > >> + /* Closes listening socket for the child. */ >> + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(server_fd)); >> + >> + client_fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM | SOCK_CLOEXEC, 0); >> + ASSERT_LE(0, client_fd); >> + >> + ASSERT_EQ(0, connect(client_fd, &addr, sizeof(addr))); >> + EXPECT_EQ(1, write(client_fd, ".", 1)); >> + >> + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(client_fd)); >> + _exit(_metadata->exit_code); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + if (self->sandboxed) { >> + int ruleset_fd = landlock_create_ruleset( >> + &ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0); >> + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd); >> + if (self->allowed) { >> + ASSERT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, >> + LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET, >> + &tcp_socket_create, 0)); >> + } >> + enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd); >> + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd)); >> + } >> + >> + client_fd = accept(server_fd, NULL, 0); >> + >> + /* accept(2) should not be restricted by Landlock. */ >> + EXPECT_LE(0, client_fd); > > Should be an ASSERT, IMHO. > If this fails, client_fd will be -1, > and a lot of the stuff afterwards will fail as well. Agreed, thank you! > >> + >> + EXPECT_EQ(1, read(client_fd, &buf, 1)); >> + EXPECT_EQ('.', buf); > > I'm torn on whether the "." write and the check for it is very useful in this test. > It muddies the test's purpose a bit, and makes it harder to recognize the main use case. > Might make the test a bit simpler to drop it. Agreed, this check is really not that important. > >> + >> + ASSERT_EQ(child, waitpid(child, &status, 0)); >> + ASSERT_EQ(1, WIFEXITED(status)); >> + ASSERT_EQ(EXIT_SUCCESS, WEXITSTATUS(status)); >> + >> + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(server_fd)); > > You are missing to close client_fd. will be fixed > >> +} >> + >> TEST_HARNESS_MAIN >> -- >> 2.34.1 >>
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c index 2ab27196fa3d..052dbe0d1227 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c @@ -939,4 +939,75 @@ TEST_F(socket_creation, sctp_peeloff) ASSERT_EQ(0, close(server_fd)); } +TEST_F(socket_creation, accept) +{ + int status; + pid_t child; + struct sockaddr_in addr; + int server_fd, client_fd; + char buf; + const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = { + .handled_access_socket = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE, + }; + struct landlock_socket_attr tcp_socket_create = { + .allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_SOCKET_CREATE, + .family = AF_INET, + .type = SOCK_STREAM, + }; + + server_fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM | SOCK_CLOEXEC, 0); + ASSERT_LE(0, server_fd); + + addr.sin_family = AF_INET; + addr.sin_port = htons(loopback_port); + addr.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr(loopback_ipv4); + + ASSERT_EQ(0, bind(server_fd, &addr, sizeof(addr))); + ASSERT_EQ(0, listen(server_fd, backlog)); + + child = fork(); + ASSERT_LE(0, child); + if (child == 0) { + /* Closes listening socket for the child. */ + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(server_fd)); + + client_fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM | SOCK_CLOEXEC, 0); + ASSERT_LE(0, client_fd); + + ASSERT_EQ(0, connect(client_fd, &addr, sizeof(addr))); + EXPECT_EQ(1, write(client_fd, ".", 1)); + + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(client_fd)); + _exit(_metadata->exit_code); + return; + } + + if (self->sandboxed) { + int ruleset_fd = landlock_create_ruleset( + &ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0); + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd); + if (self->allowed) { + ASSERT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, + LANDLOCK_RULE_SOCKET, + &tcp_socket_create, 0)); + } + enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd); + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd)); + } + + client_fd = accept(server_fd, NULL, 0); + + /* accept(2) should not be restricted by Landlock. */ + EXPECT_LE(0, client_fd); + + EXPECT_EQ(1, read(client_fd, &buf, 1)); + EXPECT_EQ('.', buf); + + ASSERT_EQ(child, waitpid(child, &status, 0)); + ASSERT_EQ(1, WIFEXITED(status)); + ASSERT_EQ(EXIT_SUCCESS, WEXITSTATUS(status)); + + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(server_fd)); +} + TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
Add test validating that socket creation with accept(2) is not restricted by Landlock. Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@huawei-partners.com> --- .../testing/selftests/landlock/socket_test.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)