[LTP] [PATCH v2 1/1] fanotify14: fix anonymous pipe testcases

[Mete Durlu]

On 3/13/24 08:26, Petr Vorel wrote:

Hi,

thanks for the review. I can send a v3 with the suggested changes if
that will make things easier. Just let me know.

>>>          if (tc->pfd) {
>>>                  dirfd = tc->pfd[0];
>>>                  path = NULL;
>>> +               se_enforcing = is_selinux_enforcing();
> nit: this check should be in the setup function to be done only once.
> (by default it's done twice, because we have 2 testcases with pfd, we support
> -iN parameter, thus it's actually 2*N.). I'll fix it before merge.
>>>          }
>
Nice catch! I fully forgot that there was a setup function while I
was trying to find the best TST_ macro to use.

>>>          tst_res(TINFO, "Testing %s with %s",
>>>                  tc->mark.desc, tc->mask.desc);
>>> -       TST_EXP_FD_OR_FAIL(fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, FAN_MARK_ADD | tc->mark.flags,
>>> -                                        tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path),
>>> -                                        tc->expected_errno);
>>> +
>>> +       if (tc->pfd && se_enforcing) {
>>> +               const int exp_errs[] = {tc->expected_errno, EACCES};
>>> +
>>> +               TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR(fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, FAN_MARK_ADD | tc->mark.flags,
>>> +                                tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path),
>>> +                                exp_errs);
>>> +       } else {
>>> +               TST_EXP_FAIL(fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, FAN_MARK_ADD | tc->mark.flags,
>>> +                                                tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path),
>>> +                                                tc->expected_errno);
>>> +       }
> 
> 
>> This looks fine to me, but on second thought I am not sure how important
>> it is to special case se_enforcing.
>> We could probably always check for either error value.
> 
> I don't mind explicitly testing EACCES with SELinux. @Jan WDYT?
> 
> With a diff below (I can change it before merge + I would do the following work
> to integrate this into the LTP C API):
> Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> 
> Kind regards,
> Petr
> 
> diff --git testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify14.c testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify14.c
> index 52c327dff..89d59c8b2 100644
> --- testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify14.c
> +++ testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify14.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ static int pipes[2] = {-1, -1};
>   static int fanotify_fd;
>   static int ignore_mark_unsupported;
>   static int filesystem_mark_unsupported;
> +static int se_enforcing;
>   static unsigned int supported_init_flags;
>   
>   struct test_case_flags_t {
> @@ -290,12 +291,10 @@ static void do_test(unsigned int number)
>   	/* Set mark on non-dir only when expecting error ENOTDIR */
>   	const char *path = tc->expected_errno == ENOTDIR ? FILE1 : MNTPOINT;
>   	int dirfd = AT_FDCWD;
> -	int se_enforcing = 0;
>   
>   	if (tc->pfd) {
>   		dirfd = tc->pfd[0];
>   		path = NULL;
> -		se_enforcing = is_selinux_enforcing();
>   	}
>   
>   	tst_res(TINFO, "Testing %s with %s",
> @@ -360,6 +359,8 @@ static void do_setup(void)
>   	SAFE_FILE_PRINTF(FILE1, "0");
>   	/* Create anonymous pipes to place marks on */
>   	SAFE_PIPE2(pipes, O_CLOEXEC);
> +
> +	se_enforcing = is_selinux_enforcing();
>   }
>   
>   static void do_cleanup(void)
>> Let's see what Jan and Petr think.
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Amir.