From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A085C00454 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:48:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA82020828 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="mYnRzTb5" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726926AbfLJTsJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:48:09 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f195.google.com ([209.85.210.195]:35709 "EHLO mail-pf1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726903AbfLJTsI (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:48:08 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f195.google.com with SMTP id b19so354942pfo.2 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:48:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=hs4+jt4b4qkjnd//rQ0dpgbF0ORXyEi5ROObXi8EfqY=; b=mYnRzTb5+sTStYc7Niv1gGvH8acexDCSmAR+l0KIkpgvJvO+UcpjC7yGbeRlAanOLS 9X2B13LZgLNohEiDdd7+igZqn9TNKmhRIY1C0B7AS+VxR1Vxl4UJ6mdA3VB6atZDX4Jn NTcWbvkzGlJ0wiIQr/Bqwlnvpx8AJV8BuVDKs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=hs4+jt4b4qkjnd//rQ0dpgbF0ORXyEi5ROObXi8EfqY=; b=rEtNO2Uvpdc2jqyGrC0Q8f3Zy/ZmjbmALHKP0i/1SF4B1yu/rAyXsFTxQ2RVYtCejZ CQkPJHbu3shdXmwWEAutmL4g4N/e7Ja0MReMmruxRai6I6xNEmQJQuIZqhBoyKo+8Psp 8Uu/spsia3vhev1svFX6BRwlYJ5Bc+2wrxPjE/TDJnjwakKtlJcpioVRXASvTMDnXaTt ngQB8Rilmindfv01qglesKK0jPDDFkMcbgf0FcAO8JLY0341DJUwv6GcgVwrXAmXVzLH DAqROUN69xA4N5Npoi6NrRbXXzqBCGJ1BiDW8Uj7RfkB9EvkoVR1coTb/ErZs4OIjdnC 5saQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWcUl8LsBIiMfftPB2pHlhJMheMZHLKend+a58yG6NYNj2EaOSw PShpdPhDZNeci/exWsDdAW6kYg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz78cU7WRPjnasXetiMClBhXKzMKxaJBk2LajotEHBGPikWJe9GXvoW0ru9xwaigCtaqSZ13Q== X-Received: by 2002:a63:4e47:: with SMTP id o7mr26628998pgl.332.1576007286738; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:48:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l186sm4243001pge.31.2019.12.10.11.48.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:48:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:48:04 -0800 From: Kees Cook To: Brendan Higgins Cc: shuah , John Johansen , jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, Alan Maguire , Iurii Zaikin , David Gow , Luis Chamberlain , Theodore Ts'o , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, KUnit Development , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Mike Salvatore Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack Message-ID: <201912101147.7BCF728@keescook> References: <20191106004329.16991-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <201911060916.AC9E14B@keescook> <20191107233337.GA191231@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:34:53PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 3:33 PM Brendan Higgins > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:18:27AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 04:43:29PM -0800, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > > From: Mike Salvatore > > > > > > > > Add KUnit tests to test AppArmor unpacking of userspace policies. > > > > AppArmor uses a serialized binary format for loading policies. To find > > > > policy format documentation see > > > > Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/apparmor.rst. > > > > > > > > In order to write the tests against the policy unpacking code, some > > > > static functions needed to be exposed for testing purposes. One of the > > > > goals of this patch is to establish a pattern for which testing these > > > > kinds of functions should be done in the future. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Salvatore > > > > --- > > > > security/apparmor/Kconfig | 16 + > > > > security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c | 4 + > > > > security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c | 607 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 3 files changed, 627 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c > > > > > > > > diff --git a/security/apparmor/Kconfig b/security/apparmor/Kconfig > > > > index d8b1a360a6368..78a33ccac2574 100644 > > > > --- a/security/apparmor/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/security/apparmor/Kconfig > > > > @@ -66,3 +66,19 @@ config SECURITY_APPARMOR_DEBUG_MESSAGES > > > > Set the default value of the apparmor.debug kernel parameter. > > > > When enabled, various debug messages will be logged to > > > > the kernel message buffer. > > > > + > > > > +config SECURITY_APPARMOR_KUNIT_TEST > > > > + bool "Build KUnit tests for policy_unpack.c" > > > > + depends on KUNIT && SECURITY_APPARMOR > > > > + help > > > > + This builds the AppArmor KUnit tests. > > > > + > > > > + KUnit tests run during boot and output the results to the debug log > > > > + in TAP format (http://testanything.org/). Only useful for kernel devs > > > > + running KUnit test harness and are not for inclusion into a > > > > + production build. > > > > + > > > > + For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general please refer > > > > + to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/. > > > > + > > > > + If unsure, say N. > > > > diff --git a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c > > > > index 8cfc9493eefc7..37c1dd3178fc0 100644 > > > > --- a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c > > > > +++ b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c > > > > @@ -1120,3 +1120,7 @@ int aa_unpack(struct aa_loaddata *udata, struct list_head *lh, > > > > > > > > return error; > > > > } > > > > + > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_KUNIT_TEST > > > > +#include "policy_unpack_test.c" > > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_KUNIT_TEST */ > > > > > > To make this even LESS intrusive, the ifdefs could live in ..._test.c. > > > > Less intrusive, yes, but I think I actually like the ifdef here; it > > makes it clear from the source that the test is only a part of the build > > when configured to do so. Nevertheless, I will change it if anyone feels > > strongly about it. > > > > > Also, while I *think* the kernel build system will correctly track this > > > dependency, can you double-check that changes to ..._test.c correctly > > > trigger a recompile of policy_unpack.c? > > > > Yep, just verified, first I ran the tests and everything passed. Then I > > applied the following diff: > > > > diff --git a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c > > index 533137f45361c..e1b0670dbdc27 100644 > > --- a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c > > +++ b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c > > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_array_with_name(struct kunit *test) > > > > array_size = unpack_array(puf->e, name); > > > > - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, array_size, (u16)TEST_ARRAY_SIZE); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, array_size + 1, (u16)TEST_ARRAY_SIZE); > > KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos, > > puf->e->start + TEST_ARRAY_BUF_OFFSET + sizeof(u16) + 1); > > } > > > > and reran the tests (to trigger an incremental build) and the test > > failed as expected indicating that the dependency is properly tracked. > > Hey Kees, > > Since it looks like you already took a pretty close look at this, > would you mind giving me a review? Yes! Thanks for checking on those items. :) Reviewed-by: Kees Cook -- Kees Cook