[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202103191026.D936362B@keescook>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:56:32 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@....gouv.fr>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v30 10/12] selftests/landlock: Add user space tests
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 09:42:50PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>
>
> Test all Landlock system calls, ptrace hooks semantic and filesystem
> access-control with multiple layouts.
>
> Test coverage for security/landlock/ is 93.6% of lines. The code not
> covered only deals with internal kernel errors (e.g. memory allocation)
> and race conditions.
>
> Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>
> Reviewed-by: Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@....gouv.fr>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210316204252.427806-11-mic@digikod.net
This is terrific. I love the coverage. How did you measure this, BTW?
To increase it into memory allocation failures, have you tried
allocation fault injection:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/fault-injection/fault-injection.html
> [...]
> +TEST(inconsistent_attr) {
> + const long page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
> + char *const buf = malloc(page_size + 1);
> + struct landlock_ruleset_attr *const ruleset_attr = (void *)buf;
> +
> + ASSERT_NE(NULL, buf);
> +
> + /* Checks copy_from_user(). */
> + ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr, 0, 0));
> + /* The size if less than sizeof(struct landlock_attr_enforce). */
> + ASSERT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);
> + ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr, 1, 0));
> + ASSERT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);
Almost everywhere you're using ASSERT instead of EXPECT. Is this correct
(in the sense than as soon as an ASSERT fails the rest of the test is
skipped)? I do see you using EXPECT is some places, but I figured I'd
ask about the intention here.
> +/*
> + * TEST_F_FORK() is useful when a test drop privileges but the corresponding
> + * FIXTURE_TEARDOWN() requires them (e.g. to remove files from a directory
> + * where write actions are denied). For convenience, FIXTURE_TEARDOWN() is
> + * also called when the test failed, but not when FIXTURE_SETUP() failed. For
> + * this to be possible, we must not call abort() but instead exit smoothly
> + * (hence the step print).
> + */
Hm, interesting. I think this should be extracted into a separate patch
and added to the test harness proper.
Could this be solved with TEARDOWN being called on SETUP failure?
> +#define TEST_F_FORK(fixture_name, test_name) \
> + static void fixture_name##_##test_name##_child( \
> + struct __test_metadata *_metadata, \
> + FIXTURE_DATA(fixture_name) *self, \
> + const FIXTURE_VARIANT(fixture_name) *variant); \
> + TEST_F(fixture_name, test_name) \
> + { \
> + int status; \
> + const pid_t child = fork(); \
> + if (child < 0) \
> + abort(); \
> + if (child == 0) { \
> + _metadata->no_print = 1; \
> + fixture_name##_##test_name##_child(_metadata, self, variant); \
> + if (_metadata->skip) \
> + _exit(255); \
> + if (_metadata->passed) \
> + _exit(0); \
> + _exit(_metadata->step); \
> + } \
> + if (child != waitpid(child, &status, 0)) \
> + abort(); \
> + if (WIFSIGNALED(status) || !WIFEXITED(status)) { \
> + _metadata->passed = 0; \
> + _metadata->step = 1; \
> + return; \
> + } \
> + switch (WEXITSTATUS(status)) { \
> + case 0: \
> + _metadata->passed = 1; \
> + break; \
> + case 255: \
> + _metadata->passed = 1; \
> + _metadata->skip = 1; \
> + break; \
> + default: \
> + _metadata->passed = 0; \
> + _metadata->step = WEXITSTATUS(status); \
> + break; \
> + } \
> + } \
This looks like a subset of __wait_for_test()? Could __TEST_F_IMPL() be
updated instead to do this? (Though the fork overhead might not be great
for everyone.)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
