Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/15] Landlock LSM

[Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>]

3/17/2022 8:26 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
> 
> On 17/03/2022 14:01, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>
>>
>> 3/15/2022 8:02 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>> Hi Konstantin,
>>>
>>> This series looks good! Thanks for the split in multiple patches.
>>>
>>   Thanks. I follow your recommendations.
>>>
>>> On 09/03/2022 14:44, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This is a new V4 bunch of RFC patches related to Landlock LSM 
>>>> network confinement.
>>>> It brings deep refactirong and commit splitting of previous version V3.
>>>> Also added additional selftests.
>>>>
>>>> This patch series can be applied on top of v5.17-rc3.
>>>>
>>>> All test were run in QEMU evironment and compiled with
>>>>   -static flag.
>>>>   1. network_test: 9/9 tests passed.
>>>
>>> I get a kernel warning running the network tests.
>>
>>    What kind of warning? Can you provide it please?
> 
> You really need to get a setup that gives you such kernel warning. When 
> running network_test you should get:
> WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 742 at security/landlock/ruleset.c:218 
> insert_rule+0x220/0x270
> 
> Before sending new patches, please make sure you're able to catch such 
> issues.
> 
> 
>>>
>>>>   2. base_test: 8/8 tests passed.
>>>>   3. fs_test: 46/46 tests passed.
>>>>   4. ptrace_test: 4/8 tests passed.
>>>
>>> Does your test machine use Yama? That would explain the 4/8. You can 
>>> disable it with the appropriate sysctl.
> 
> Can you answer this question?
> 
> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tests were also launched for Landlock version without
>>>> v4 patch:
>>>>   1. base_test: 8/8 tests passed.
>>>>   2. fs_test: 46/46 tests passed.
>>>>   3. ptrace_test: 4/8 tests passed.
>>>>
>>>> Could not provide test coverage cause had problems with tests
>>>> on VM (no -static flag the tests compiling, no v4 patch applied):
>>>
    Hi, Mickaёl!
    I tried to get base test coverage without v4 patch applied.

    1. Kernel configuration :
	- CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=y
	- CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL=y
	- CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL=y
    2. Added GCOV_PROFILE := y in security/landlock/Makefile
    3. Compiled kernel  and rebooted VM with the new one.
    4. Run landlock selftests as root user:
	$ cd tools/testing/selftests/landlock
	$ ./base_test
	$ ./fs_test
	$ ./ptrace_test
    5. Copied GCOV data to some folder :
       $ cp -r 
/sys/kernel/debug/gcov/<source-dir>/linux/security/landlock/ /gcov-before
       $ cd /gcov-before
       $ lcov -c -d ./landlock -o lcov.info && genhtml -o html lcov.info

I got the next result:
" Capturing coverage data from ./landlock
Found gcov version: 9.4.0
Using intermediate gcov format
Scanning ./landlock for .gcda files ...
Found 7 data files in ./landlock
Processing landlock/setup.gcda
/home/kmeskhidze/work/src/gcov_before/landlock/setup.gcda:cannot open 
data file, assuming not executed
Processing landlock/object.gcda
/home/kmeskhidze/work/src/gcov_before/landlock/object.gcda:cannot open 
data file, assuming not executed
Processing landlock/cred.gcda
/home/kmeskhidze/work/src/gcov_before/landlock/cred.gcda:cannot open 
data file, assuming not executed
Processing landlock/ruleset.gcda
/home/kmeskhidze/work/src/gcov_before/landlock/ruleset.gcda:cannot open 
data file, assuming not executed
Processing landlock/syscalls.gcda
/home/kmeskhidze/work/src/gcov_before/landlock/syscalls.gcda:cannot open 
data file, assuming not executed
Processing landlock/fs.gcda
/home/kmeskhidze/work/src/gcov_before/landlock/fs.gcda:cannot open data 
file, assuming not executed
Processing landlock/ptrace.gcda
/home/kmeskhidze/work/src/gcov_before/landlock/ptrace.gcda:cannot open 
data file, assuming not executed
Finished .info-file creation
Reading data file lcov.info
Found 38 entries.
Found common filename prefix "/home/kmeskhidze/work/src/linux_5.13_landlock"
Writing .css and .png files.
Generating output.
Processing file arch/x86/include/asm/atomic64_64.h
Processing file arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
Processing file arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h
Processing file arch/x86/include/asm/current.h
Processing file include/asm-generic/getorder.h
Processing file include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-non-atomic.h
Processing file include/linux/fs.h
Processing file include/linux/refcount.h
Processing file include/linux/kernel.h
Processing file include/linux/list.h
Processing file include/linux/sched.h
Processing file include/linux/overflow.h
Processing file include/linux/dcache.h
Processing file include/linux/spinlock.h
Processing file include/linux/file.h
Processing file include/linux/rcupdate.h
Processing file include/linux/err.h
Processing file include/linux/workqueue.h
Processing file include/linux/fortify-string.h
Processing file include/linux/slab.h
Processing file include/linux/instrumented.h
Processing file include/linux/uaccess.h
Processing file include/linux/thread_info.h
Processing file include/linux/rbtree.h
Processing file include/linux/log2.h
Processing file include/linux/atomic/atomic-instrumented.h
Processing file include/linux/atomic/atomic-long.h
Processing file security/landlock/fs.c
Processing file security/landlock/ruleset.h
Processing file security/landlock/ruleset.c
Processing file security/landlock/ptrace.c
Processing file security/landlock/object.h
Processing file security/landlock/syscalls.c
Processing file security/landlock/setup.c
Processing file security/landlock/cred.c
Processing file security/landlock/object.c
Processing file security/landlock/fs.h
Processing file security/landlock/cred.h
Writing directory view page.
Overall coverage rate:
   lines......: 0.0% (0 of 937 lines)
   functions..: 0.0% (0 of 67 functions) "

Looks like .gcda files were not executed.
Maybe I did miss something. Any thoughts?

>>> You can build statically-linked tests with:
>>> make -C tools/testing/selftests/landlock CFLAGS=-static
>>
>>   Ok. I will try. Thanks.
>>>
>>>> 1. base_test: 7/8 tests passed.
>>>>   Error:
>>>>   # Starting 8 tests from 1 test cases.
>>>>   #  RUN           global.inconsistent_attr ...
>>>>   # base_test.c:51:inconsistent_attr:Expected ENOMSG (42) == errno (22)
>>>
>>> This looks like a bug in the syscall argument checks.
>>
>>    This bug I just get when don't use -static option. With -static 
>> base test passes 8/8.
> 
> Weird, I'd like to know what is the cause of this issue. What disto and 
> version do you use as host and guest VM? Do you have some warning when 
> compiling?
> .