Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] selftests/ipe: test the IPE policy keyring

[Fan Wu <wufan@kernel.org>]

On 10/19/2026 2:40 PM, Manuel Huber via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Manuel Huber <manuelh@nvidia.com>
> 
> Add an IPE kselftest that validates policy keyring operations for
> both ipe.keyring_unsealed values 0 and 1.
> 
> For the default ipe.keyring_unsealed=0, verify that a) the special key
> ID resolves, b) certificate enrollment is rejected, and c) the keyring
> is not used for policy verification.
> For ipe.keyring_unsealed=1, verify that we can a) provision multiple
> certificates, b) restrict the keyring, then reject unenrolled and
> corrupted signatures, c) authenticate policy loads and updates with
> different enrolled certificates.
> 
> Since IPE is built in, keyring restriction is irreversible, which is
> why we can only exercise the initially sealed and unsealed scenarios
> via separate boots. To get full coverage, CI thus needs to spin up
> separate environments with respective parameter values.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manuel Huber <manuelh@nvidia.com>
> ---

IPE doesn't use kselftest. Our tests live in the IPE CI [1], which already has keyring tests for policy signatures [2] and an initrd unit that provisions and seals the .fs-verity keyring [3]. Please add the .ipe cases there instead.
[1] https://github.com/Integrity-Policy-Enforcement/ci
[2] https://github.com/Integrity-Policy-Enforcement/ci/blob/main/suite/cases/policy_signature.py
[3] https://github.com/Integrity-Policy-Enforcement/ci/blob/main/image/initrd/anchor-fsverity.service

Fan