Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 6/8] IMA: Add example policy for ima_violations.sh

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

Hi Mimi,

> Hi Petr,

> On Fri, 2024-12-13 at 23:20 +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Suggested-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > ---
> >  .../integrity/ima/datafiles/ima_violations/violations.policy     | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >  create mode 100644 testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/datafiles/ima_violations/violations.policy

> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/datafiles/ima_violations/violations.policy b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/datafiles/ima_violations/violations.policy
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..5734c7617f
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/datafiles/ima_violations/violations.policy
> > @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> > +func=FILE_CHECK

> "[PATCH v2 1/8] IMA: Add TCB policy as an example for ima_measurements.sh"
> contains two rules to measure files opened by root on file open.

> measure func=FILE_CHECK mask=^MAY_READ euid=0
> measure func=FILE_CHECK mask=^MAY_READ uid=0

> If the 'tcb' or equivalent policy is loaded, there is no need to load another
> policy rule. 

I guess I'll move check for builtin policy loaded via kernel command line
parameter also to ima_setup.sh to avoid loading example policy when there is a
required builtin policy loaded. I also wonder what is a common approach - don't
try to load custom example policy when there is builtin policy loaded?

My goal was to allow more broad IMA testing based on different setup:

* running tests with ima_policy=tcb builtin policy (current approach). Many
tests will be skipped due missing required policy content.
* running tests without any builtin policy + load a custom policy + reboot via
LTP_IMA_LOAD_POLICY=1 (this patchset), but this should be probably be done only
if required (or even none) builtin policy is loaded.
* Ideally not require CONFIG_IMA_READ_POLICY=y as some distros does not have it
(but then it is hard to detect whether failures are real bugs or just false
positives due not having a proper policy). Maybe convert TBROK/TFAIL to TCONF if
policy content is required but cannot be read due CONFIG_IMA_READ_POLICY (and
custom policy with proper content was not loaded).

But you may have an idea what is more useful (brings more test coverage).

Kind regards,
Petr

> Thanks,

> Mimi

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp