Re: [RFC PATCH] audit-testsuite: tests for subject and object correctness

[Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>]

On 2020-11-02 22:31, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:19 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 2020-11-02 14:51, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > On 11/2/2020 2:08 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > On 2020-11-02 13:54, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > >> Verify that there are subj= and obj= fields in a record
> > > >> if and only if they are expected. A system without a security
> > > >> module that provides these fields should not include them.
> > > >> A system with multiple security modules providing these fields
> > > >> (e.g. SELinux and AppArmor) should always provide "?" for the
> > > >> data and also include a AUDIT_MAC_TASK_CONTEXTS or
> > > >> AUDIT_MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS record. The test uses the LSM list from
> > > >> /sys/kernel/security/lsm to determine which format is expected.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>  tests/Makefile                   |   1 +
> > > >>  tests/multiple_contexts/Makefile |  12 +++
> > > >>  tests/multiple_contexts/test     | 166 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >>  3 files changed, 179 insertions(+)
> > > >>  create mode 100644 tests/multiple_contexts/Makefile
> > > >>  create mode 100755 tests/multiple_contexts/test
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/tests/Makefile b/tests/Makefile
> > > >> index a7f242a..f20f6b1 100644
> > > >> --- a/tests/Makefile
> > > >> +++ b/tests/Makefile
> > > >> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ TESTS := \
> > > >>    file_create \
> > > >>    file_delete \
> > > >>    file_rename \
> > > >> +  multiple_contexts \
> > > > "context" is a bit ambiguous.  Could this be named something to indicate
> > > > a security context rather than any other sort, such as audit or user
> > > > context?
> > >
> > > Would "subj_obj_fields" be better?
> >
> > That is much more obvious to me.  Maybe even sec_context_multi, but I
> > like your suggestion better?
> 
> How about just "multiple_lsms"?  It's relatively concise and better
> reflects what it is actually being tested IMHO.

Yes, that's better.  Works for me.

> paul moore

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635

--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit