From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lachlan Sneff Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:46:37 -0400 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 1/2] IMA: Verify that the kernel cmdline is passed and measured correctly through the kexec barrier. In-Reply-To: <20200715081857.GB10916@dell5510> References: <20200702153545.3126-1-t-josne@linux.microsoft.com> <20200702153545.3126-2-t-josne@linux.microsoft.com> <20200715081857.GB10916@dell5510> Message-ID: <3ec443ab-f9ed-a435-2a61-e1b7c8f513dd@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 7/15/20 4:18 AM, Petr Vorel wrote: >> +++ b/testcases/kexec/utils.sh >> @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ >> +#!/bin/sh >> + >> +install() { >> + local arg="$1" >> + >> + if [ ! -d "/etc/init.d" ]; then >> + mkdir /etc/init.d >> + fi > I'm not sure if tests like this are suitable for LTP. > Ideal LTP test is a normal test, which is able to run with runltp, cleanup after > itself and use LTP C or/and shell API. LTP is full of tests which needs special > handling and thus not being run, not sure if it's a good idea to introduce yet > another one. > > Also test shouldn't not significantly modify SUT to make it unbootable, which > I'm not sure in this case. This is a big difference to kselftests which are > meant to help during kernel development which somehow expects some system > modifications (as you install your custom build kernel). > > I wonder if using QEMU would help to implement this test while not touching SUT > (thus be able to run this test with runltp). If you miss something in LTP API > just let us know. Using qemu is an interesting idea, but would be difficult to generalize. I actually do agree with you that a test like this may not be appropriate for LTP since it's so separate and alien to the rest of the LTP suite. I need to confirm internally before I make a decision here, but is there a better place to put a test like this? Thanks for your review, Lachlan :)