[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] landlock01: used fixed size for rule_small_size

[Li Wang]

On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 6:43 PM Wei Gao <wegao@suse.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 12:13:25PM +0800, Li Wang wrote:
> > The landlock01 test is failing on kernel v6.12-rc6 with the
> > following error:
> >
> >   landlock01.c:49: TFAIL: Size is too small expected EINVAL: ENOMSG (42)
> >
> > Previously, rule_small_size was calculated conditionally based
> > on the presence of the handled_access_net field in the struct
> > landlock_ruleset_attr.
> >
> > However, the kernel's landlock_create_ruleset() function still uses
> > the size up to handled_access_fs to determine the minimal acceptable
> > size for backward compatibility, regardless of any new fields added.
> >
> > According to the Landlock maintainer[1], this behavior will remain
> > for backward compatibility reasons. Therefore, it's unnecessary to
> > conditionally adjust rule_small_size based on new fields.
> >
> > This patch simplifies the test by setting rule_small_size to
> > 'sizeof(__u64) - 1', which effectively tests the minimal size based
> > on handled_access_fs.
> >
> > [1] https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2024-July/039084.html
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  testcases/kernel/syscalls/landlock/landlock01.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/landlock/landlock01.c
> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/landlock/landlock01.c
> > index 083685c64..c375e5154 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/landlock/landlock01.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/landlock/landlock01.c
> > @@ -62,11 +62,17 @@ static void setup(void)
> >
> >       rule_size = sizeof(struct landlock_ruleset_attr);
> >
> > -#ifdef HAVE_STRUCT_LANDLOCK_RULESET_ATTR_HANDLED_ACCESS_NET
> > -     rule_small_size = rule_size - sizeof(uint64_t) - 1;
> > -#else
> > -     rule_small_size = rule_size - 1;
> > -#endif
> Since we do not need HAVE_STRUCT_LANDLOCK_RULESET_ATTR_HANDLED_ACCESS_NET
> anymore, so i suppose we can remove
> following change in configure.ac?
>

Theirecally that's correct, but I see Andrea achieving V2 patchset for
landlock.
Let's not delete the macro yet but check which method works first.

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang