[PATCH] ima_tpm.sh: update test2 to detect integrity violations

[PATCH] ima_tpm.sh: update test2 to detect integrity violations

[Mimi Zohar]

<securityfs>/integrity/ima/violations reflects the number of
integrity violations.  Include the "--ignore-violations" option,
if there are any violations, on the initial IMA measurement list
verification.

Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
---
 .../security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh   | 20 ++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
index 5d34d8679..acd8b6d30 100755
--- a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
+++ b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
@@ -142,6 +142,8 @@ read_pcr_tpm2()
 get_pcr10_aggregate()
 {
 	local cmd="evmctl -vv ima_measurement $BINARY_MEASUREMENTS"
+	local violations="$IMA_DIR/violations"
+	local num_violations=0
 	local msg="$ERRMSG_EVMCTL"
 	local res=TCONF
 	local pcr ret
@@ -151,16 +153,20 @@ get_pcr10_aggregate()
 		res=TFAIL
 	fi
 
-	$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
-	ret=$?
-	if [ $ret -ne 0 -a -z "$MISSING_EVMCTL" ]; then
-		tst_res TFAIL "evmctl failed, trying with --ignore-violations"
+	if [ ! -f "$violations" ]; then
+		tst_res TINFO "missing $violations"
+	else
+		num_violations=$(cat "$violations")
+	fi
+
+	if [ "$num_violations" -eq 0 ]; then
+		$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
+		ret=$?
+	else
+		tst_res TINFO "ignoring $num_violations violations"
 		cmd="$cmd --ignore-violations"
 		$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
 		ret=$?
-	elif [ $ret -ne 0 -a "$MISSING_EVMCTL" = 1 ]; then
-		tst_res TFAIL "evmctl failed $msg"
-		return
 	fi
 
 	[ $ret -ne 0 ] && tst_res TWARN "evmctl failed, trying to continue $msg"
-- 
2.55.0

Re: [PATCH] ima_tpm.sh: update test2 to detect integrity violations

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Mimi,

> <securityfs>/integrity/ima/violations reflects the number of
> integrity violations.  Include the "--ignore-violations" option,
> if there are any violations, on the initial IMA measurement list
> verification.

Thanks for your patch!

LGTM and it should be fixed. But there are some potential problems
(see bellow).

> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  .../security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh   | 20 ++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
> index 5d34d8679..acd8b6d30 100755
> --- a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
> @@ -142,6 +142,8 @@ read_pcr_tpm2()
>  get_pcr10_aggregate()
>  {
>  	local cmd="evmctl -vv ima_measurement $BINARY_MEASUREMENTS"
> +	local violations="$IMA_DIR/violations"
> +	local num_violations=0
>  	local msg="$ERRMSG_EVMCTL"
>  	local res=TCONF
>  	local pcr ret
> @@ -151,16 +153,20 @@ get_pcr10_aggregate()
>  		res=TFAIL
>  	fi

> -	$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
> -	ret=$?
> -	if [ $ret -ne 0 -a -z "$MISSING_EVMCTL" ]; then
> -		tst_res TFAIL "evmctl failed, trying with --ignore-violations"
You removed TFAIL (potential problem, see later).

> +	if [ ! -f "$violations" ]; then
> +		tst_res TINFO "missing $violations"
> +	else
> +		num_violations=$(cat "$violations")
> +	fi
> +
> +	if [ "$num_violations" -eq 0 ]; then
> +		$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
> +		ret=$?
> +	else
> +		tst_res TINFO "ignoring $num_violations violations"
>  		cmd="$cmd --ignore-violations"
>  		$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
>  		ret=$?
> -	elif [ $ret -ne 0 -a "$MISSING_EVMCTL" = 1 ]; then
> -		tst_res TFAIL "evmctl failed $msg"
And here again removed TFAIL (see later).

The main problem is that you removed the code when evmctl is not installed.

Therefore trying to rerun evmctl on failure on older release (e.g. 1.3) it will
fail due option have different name or not exist at all in evmctl < 1.2).
-a "$MISSING_EVMCTL" = 1 check had meaning "don't rerun with --ignore-violations
on old evmctl which does not have the option.

FYI the code is a bit complicated, because here on TPM2 we require evmctl 1.3.1
to have --ignore-violations (renamed from --validate), which was released in
2020 - too new for old enterprise distros to ignore; also TPM1 we require only
1.1 from 2018, probably still too new. Once SLE12-SP3 EOL (in 1 year we may just
expect 1.3.1 to simplify).

> -		return
>  	fi

>  	[ $ret -ne 0 ] && tst_res TWARN "evmctl failed, trying to continue $msg"
Back to removed TFAIL. While this is OK as TWARN (some problem, but not related
to testing) we might end up to TBROK "Test didn't report any results" error in
tst_test.sh which quits test with TBROK "Test didn't report any results" if
there is no TPASS/TFAIL/TCONF message.

_tst_resstr()
{
	echo "$TST_PASS$TST_FAIL$TST_CONF"
}

_tst_rescmp()
{
	local res=$(_tst_resstr)

	if [ "$1" = "$res" ]; then
		tst_brk TBROK "Test didn't report any results"
	fi
}

And this happen later in test2():
	get_pcr10_aggregate > tmp.txt
	pcr_aggregate="$(cat tmp.txt)"
	if [ -z "$pcr_aggregate" ]; then
		return
	fi

Other option would be to print TFAIL message in test2():

	get_pcr10_aggregate > tmp.txt
	pcr_aggregate="$(cat tmp.txt)"
	if [ -z "$pcr_aggregate" ]; then
		tst_res TBROK "failed to get aggregate PCR-10"
		return
	fi

Lol, I'm disappointed how complicated and error prone I wrote back then.
Part of the problem is that quit with tst_brk does not work, when code which
does it is run in a subshell (via $(...) or `...) ), which quits subshell but
not the parent shell.

Kind regards,
Petr

Re: [PATCH] ima_tpm.sh: update test2 to detect integrity violations

[Mimi Zohar]

Hi Petr,

On Mon, 2026-08-17 at 12:55 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Mimi,
> 
> > <securityfs>/integrity/ima/violations reflects the number of
> > integrity violations.  Include the "--ignore-violations" option,
> > if there are any violations, on the initial IMA measurement list
> > verification.
> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
> LGTM and it should be fixed. But there are some potential problems
> (see bellow).

And here I thought this was a simple performance improvement to execute evmctl
with/without the --ignore-violations option once.

> 
> > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  .../security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh   | 20 ++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
> > index 5d34d8679..acd8b6d30 100755
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
> > @@ -142,6 +142,8 @@ read_pcr_tpm2()
> >  get_pcr10_aggregate()
> >  {
> >  	local cmd="evmctl -vv ima_measurement $BINARY_MEASUREMENTS"
> > +	local violations="$IMA_DIR/violations"
> > +	local num_violations=0
> >  	local msg="$ERRMSG_EVMCTL"
> >  	local res=TCONF
> >  	local pcr ret
> > @@ -151,16 +153,20 @@ get_pcr10_aggregate()
> >  		res=TFAIL
> >  	fi
> 
> > -	$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
> > -	ret=$?
> > -	if [ $ret -ne 0 -a -z "$MISSING_EVMCTL" ]; then
> > -		tst_res TFAIL "evmctl failed, trying with --ignore-violations"
> You removed TFAIL (potential problem, see later).
> 
> > +	if [ ! -f "$violations" ]; then
> > +		tst_res TINFO "missing $violations"
> > +	else
> > +		num_violations=$(cat "$violations")
> > +	fi
> > +
> > +	if [ "$num_violations" -eq 0 ]; then
> > +		$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
> > +		ret=$?
> > +	else
> > +		tst_res TINFO "ignoring $num_violations violations"
> >  		cmd="$cmd --ignore-violations"
> >  		$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
> >  		ret=$?
> > -	elif [ $ret -ne 0 -a "$MISSING_EVMCTL" = 1 ]; then
> > -		tst_res TFAIL "evmctl failed $msg"
> And here again removed TFAIL (see later).
> 
> The main problem is that you removed the code when evmctl is not installed.

If I'm understanding the code correctly, the original code executed evmctl
whether it existed or not.  Let's fix that first.  My question is whether the
test should fail or be skipped?

> 
> Therefore trying to rerun evmctl on failure on older release (e.g. 1.3) it will
> fail due option have different name or not exist at all in evmctl < 1.2).
> -a "$MISSING_EVMCTL" = 1 check had meaning "don't rerun with --ignore-violations
> on old evmctl which does not have the option.

Thank you for the explanation.

Before appending the "--ignore-violations" we should make sure it is supported.
I guess for backwards compatibility we still want to verify the measurement
list, knowing it will fail.

Hopefully with these two changes this patch will work properly.

Mimi

> 
> FYI the code is a bit complicated, because here on TPM2 we require evmctl 1.3.1
> to have --ignore-violations (renamed from --validate), which was released in
> 2020 - too new for old enterprise distros to ignore; also TPM1 we require only
> 1.1 from 2018, probably still too new. Once SLE12-SP3 EOL (in 1 year we may just
> expect 1.3.1 to simplify).
> 
> > -		return
> >  	fi
> 
> >  	[ $ret -ne 0 ] && tst_res TWARN "evmctl failed, trying to continue $msg"
> Back to removed TFAIL. While this is OK as TWARN (some problem, but not related
> to testing) we might end up to TBROK "Test didn't report any results" error in
> tst_test.sh which quits test with TBROK "Test didn't report any results" if
> there is no TPASS/TFAIL/TCONF message.
> 
> _tst_resstr()
> {
> 	echo "$TST_PASS$TST_FAIL$TST_CONF"
> }
> 
> _tst_rescmp()
> {
> 	local res=$(_tst_resstr)
> 
> 	if [ "$1" = "$res" ]; then
> 		tst_brk TBROK "Test didn't report any results"
> 	fi
> }
> 
> And this happen later in test2():
> 	get_pcr10_aggregate > tmp.txt
> 	pcr_aggregate="$(cat tmp.txt)"
> 	if [ -z "$pcr_aggregate" ]; then
> 		return
> 	fi
> 
> Other option would be to print TFAIL message in test2():
> 
> 	get_pcr10_aggregate > tmp.txt
> 	pcr_aggregate="$(cat tmp.txt)"
> 	if [ -z "$pcr_aggregate" ]; then
> 		tst_res TBROK "failed to get aggregate PCR-10"
> 		return
> 	fi
> 
> Lol, I'm disappointed how complicated and error prone I wrote back then.
> Part of the problem is that quit with tst_brk does not work, when code which
> does it is run in a subshell (via $(...) or `...) ), which quits subshell but
> not the parent shell.

Re: [PATCH] ima_tpm.sh: update test2 to detect integrity violations

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Mimi,

> Hi Petr,

> On Mon, 2026-08-17 at 12:55 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi Mimi,

> > > <securityfs>/integrity/ima/violations reflects the number of
> > > integrity violations.  Include the "--ignore-violations" option,
> > > if there are any violations, on the initial IMA measurement list
> > > verification.

> > Thanks for your patch!

> > LGTM and it should be fixed. But there are some potential problems
> > (see bellow).

> And here I thought this was a simple performance improvement to execute evmctl
> with/without the --ignore-violations option once.

FYI back then I did not worry that much about performance (i.e. running evmctl
once or twice does not matter to me), I wanted to keep test coverage on vast
majority of distro versions (old and new). Maybe it's not that important.

> > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh   | 20 ++++++++++++-------
> > >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

> > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
> > > index 5d34d8679..acd8b6d30 100755
> > > --- a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
> > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_tpm.sh
> > > @@ -142,6 +142,8 @@ read_pcr_tpm2()
> > >  get_pcr10_aggregate()
> > >  {
> > >  	local cmd="evmctl -vv ima_measurement $BINARY_MEASUREMENTS"
> > > +	local violations="$IMA_DIR/violations"
> > > +	local num_violations=0
> > >  	local msg="$ERRMSG_EVMCTL"
> > >  	local res=TCONF
> > >  	local pcr ret
> > > @@ -151,16 +153,20 @@ get_pcr10_aggregate()
> > >  		res=TFAIL
> > >  	fi

> > > -	$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
> > > -	ret=$?
> > > -	if [ $ret -ne 0 -a -z "$MISSING_EVMCTL" ]; then
> > > -		tst_res TFAIL "evmctl failed, trying with --ignore-violations"
> > You removed TFAIL (potential problem, see later).

> > > +	if [ ! -f "$violations" ]; then
> > > +		tst_res TINFO "missing $violations"
> > > +	else
> > > +		num_violations=$(cat "$violations")
> > > +	fi
> > > +
> > > +	if [ "$num_violations" -eq 0 ]; then
> > > +		$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
> > > +		ret=$?
> > > +	else
> > > +		tst_res TINFO "ignoring $num_violations violations"
> > >  		cmd="$cmd --ignore-violations"
> > >  		$cmd > hash.txt 2>&1
> > >  		ret=$?
> > > -	elif [ $ret -ne 0 -a "$MISSING_EVMCTL" = 1 ]; then
> > > -		tst_res TFAIL "evmctl failed $msg"
> > And here again removed TFAIL (see later).

> > The main problem is that you removed the code when evmctl is not installed.

> If I'm understanding the code correctly, the original code executed evmctl
> whether it existed or not.  Let's fix that first.  My question is whether the
IMHO no.

> test should fail or be skipped?

The original intention in 7fd7c9febd [1] was to run without --ignore-violations
on any evmctl and if test fails (recorded always as TFAIL) and evmctl is new
enough rerun it with --ignore-violations.  (Simply not run for the second time
and just fail on missing evmctl or evmctl being too old to support
--ignore-violations.) Quoting the kernel commit for the reason:

	For old kernels which use SHA1/MD5, any evmctl version is required (evmctl
	ima_measurement was introduced in very old v0.7), but:
	* newer sysctl path /sys/class/tpm/tpm0/device/pcrs requires evmctl 1.1
	* using ima_policy=tcb requires 1.3.1 due --ignore-violations

	For evmctl >= 1.3.1 on failure we try to retest with --ignore-violations.

Is it a wrong approach? Looking on your patch it probably is wrong approach
(not taking /sys/kernel/security/ima/violations into account).

Also, as $MISSING_EVMCTL is taking into account in the results, it should be
safe.

[1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commit/7fd7c9febdd7ed48ae3563923074bcabdfec3923

> > Therefore trying to rerun evmctl on failure on older release (e.g. 1.3) it will
> > fail due option have different name or not exist at all in evmctl < 1.2).
> > -a "$MISSING_EVMCTL" = 1 check had meaning "don't rerun with --ignore-violations
> > on old evmctl which does not have the option.

And $MISSING_EVMCTL is a bit misleading name, because 1 means either "evmctl not
installed at all" or "installed old evmctl version" (MISSING_SUITABLE_EVMCTL or
something would be more obvious).

> Thank you for the explanation.

+1, thank you too for your explanation.

> Before appending the "--ignore-violations" we should make sure it is supported.
Yes. And I hoped that code in the setup() resulting in $MISSING_EVMCTL did it
correctly.

> I guess for backwards compatibility we still want to verify the measurement
> list, knowing it will fail.

Yes.

> Hopefully with these two changes this patch will work properly.

Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
(plan to merge tomorrow, in case there is any feedback)

BTW when run on new system (recent Tumbleweed) without evmctl the second TCONF
message is misleading a bit but let's ignore it:

ima_tpm 1 TINFO: TPM hardware support not enabled in kernel or no TPM chip found, testing TPM-bypass
ima_tpm 1 TCONF: 'evmctl' not found
ima_tpm 1 TCONF: algorithm not sha1 (sha256) => install evmctl >= 1.3.1

And other issue is that parsing kernel config in setup() should be replaced with
API function tst_check_kconfigs (less error-prone, it can ballback to
/proc/config.gz, etc). That's my TODO.

Kind regards,
Petr

> Mimi


> > FYI the code is a bit complicated, because here on TPM2 we require evmctl 1.3.1
> > to have --ignore-violations (renamed from --validate), which was released in
> > 2020 - too new for old enterprise distros to ignore; also TPM1 we require only
> > 1.1 from 2018, probably still too new. Once SLE12-SP3 EOL (in 1 year we may just
> > expect 1.3.1 to simplify).

> > > -		return
> > >  	fi

> > >  	[ $ret -ne 0 ] && tst_res TWARN "evmctl failed, trying to continue $msg"
> > Back to removed TFAIL. While this is OK as TWARN (some problem, but not related
> > to testing) we might end up to TBROK "Test didn't report any results" error in
> > tst_test.sh which quits test with TBROK "Test didn't report any results" if
> > there is no TPASS/TFAIL/TCONF message.

> > _tst_resstr()
> > {
> > 	echo "$TST_PASS$TST_FAIL$TST_CONF"
> > }

> > _tst_rescmp()
> > {
> > 	local res=$(_tst_resstr)

> > 	if [ "$1" = "$res" ]; then
> > 		tst_brk TBROK "Test didn't report any results"
> > 	fi
> > }

> > And this happen later in test2():
> > 	get_pcr10_aggregate > tmp.txt
> > 	pcr_aggregate="$(cat tmp.txt)"
> > 	if [ -z "$pcr_aggregate" ]; then
> > 		return
> > 	fi

> > Other option would be to print TFAIL message in test2():

> > 	get_pcr10_aggregate > tmp.txt
> > 	pcr_aggregate="$(cat tmp.txt)"
> > 	if [ -z "$pcr_aggregate" ]; then
> > 		tst_res TBROK "failed to get aggregate PCR-10"
> > 		return
> > 	fi

> > Lol, I'm disappointed how complicated and error prone I wrote back then.
> > Part of the problem is that quit with tst_brk does not work, when code which
> > does it is run in a subshell (via $(...) or `...) ), which quits subshell but
> > not the parent shell.