From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:01:47 -0800 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] IMA: Add test for selinux measurement In-Reply-To: References: <20210222023805.12846-1-nramas@linux.microsoft.com> Message-ID: <21490e27-a965-7d25-4c44-07bd89d0ac40@linux.microsoft.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it On 2/23/21 2:14 PM, Petr Vorel wrote: >> On 2/23/21 10:00 AM, Petr Vorel wrote: > > >>>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_selinux.sh >>> ... >>>> +validate_policy_capabilities() >>>> +{ >>>> + local measured_cap measured_value expected_value >>>> + local result=1 >>>> + local inx=7 >>>> + >>>> + # Policy capabilities flags start from "network_peer_controls" >>>> + # in the measured SELinux state at offset 7 for 'awk' >>>> + while [ $inx -lt 20 ]; do >>>> + measured_cap=$(echo $1 | awk -F'[=;]' -v inx="$inx" '{print $inx}') >>>> + inx=$(( $inx + 1 )) >>>> + >>>> + measured_value=$(echo $1 | awk -F'[=;]' -v inx="$inx" '{print $inx}') >>>> + expected_value=$(cat "$SELINUX_DIR/policy_capabilities/$measured_cap") >>>> + if [ "$measured_value" != "$expected_value" ];then >>>> + tst_res TWARN "$measured_cap: expected: $expected_value, got: $digest" >>> We rarely use TWARN in the tests, only when the error is not related to the test result. >>> Otherwise we use TFAIL. >> ok - I will change it to TFAIL. > Thanks! > But I've noticed that this error is handled twice, first in validate_policy_capabilities() > as TWARN (or TFAIL) and then in test2(). Let's use TPASS/TFAIL in > validate_policy_capabilities(): Sure - will make that change. > > validate_policy_capabilities() > { > local measured_cap measured_value expected_value > local inx=7 > > # Policy capabilities flags start from "network_peer_controls" > # in the measured SELinux state at offset 7 for 'awk' > while [ $inx -lt 20 ]; do > measured_cap=$(echo $1 | awk -F'[=;]' -v inx="$inx" '{print $inx}') > inx=$(($inx + 1)) > > measured_value=$(echo $1 | awk -F'[=;]' -v inx="$inx" '{print $inx}') > expected_value=$(cat "$SELINUX_DIR/policy_capabilities/$measured_cap") > if [ "$measured_value" != "$expected_value" ]; then > tst_res TFAIL "$measured_cap: expected: $expected_value, got: $digest" > return > fi > > inx=$(($inx + 1)) > done > > tst_res TPASS "SELinux state measured correctly" > } > > test2() > { > ... > validate_policy_capabilities $measured_data > } > > ... >>> As we discuss, I'm going tom merge test when patchset is merged in maintainers tree, >>> please ping me. And ideally we should mention kernel commit hash as a comment in >>> the test. >> Will do. Thank you. > Thanks! > > ... >>> +++ testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_selinux.sh >>> @@ -13,16 +13,14 @@ TST_SETUP="setup" >>> . ima_setup.sh >>> FUNC_CRITICAL_DATA='func=CRITICAL_DATA' >>> -REQUIRED_POLICY="^measure.*($FUNC_CRITICAL_DATA)" >>> +REQUIRED_POLICY="^measure.*$FUNC_CRITICAL_DATA" >>> setup() >>> { >>> - SELINUX_DIR=$(tst_get_selinux_dir) >>> - if [ -z "$SELINUX_DIR" ]; then >>> - tst_brk TCONF "SELinux is not enabled" >>> - return >>> - fi >>> + tst_require_selinux_enabled >> Please correct me if I have misunderstood this one: > >> tst_require_selinux_enabled is checking if SELinux is enabled in "enforce" >> mode. Would this check fail if SELinux is enabled in "permissive" mode? > >> For running the test, we just need SELinux to be enabled. I verify that by >> checking for the presence of SELINUX_DIR. > > Good catch. Your original version is correct (put it back into ima/selinux.v2.fixes). > I didn't put a helper for it, because you need $SELINUX_DIR anyway. > Thus removed tst_require_selinux_enabled() as not needed. Thanks > > I renamed tst_selinux_enabled() to tst_selinux_enforced() to make the purpose clearer > (commit 82b598ea1 IMA: Add test for selinux measurement). > > I've updated branch ima/selinux.v2.fixes with all mentioned changes > https://github.com/pevik/ltp/commits/ima/selinux.v2.fixes > Thanks again. I'll make my changes in this branch and post the patches later this week. -lakshmi