linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4a 1/2] selftests/kexec: make tests independent of IMA being enabled

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190326074942.GA19708@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:49:42 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4a 1/2] selftests/kexec: make tests independent of IMA
 being enabled

On 03/25/19 at 04:37pm, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 16:09 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > Hi Mimi
> > On 03/22/19 at 03:35pm, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > Verify IMA is enabled before failing tests or emitting irrelevant
> > > messages.  Also, don't skip the test if signatures are not required.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > Dave, if this patch resolves the outstanding issues, I can fold these
> > > changes into the original patches. (Reminder, these patches will need to
> > > be updated to support the "lockdown" patch set.)
> > 
> > They looks good to me, thanks for the update
> 
> I've folded the kexec_file_load changes into the kexec_file_load test.
>  The remaining kexec_load change is left as a separate patch, since it
> is dependent on the ikconfig change.
> 
> > Feel free to add my reviewed-by, I did some tests although not cover all
> > ima cases.
> 
> Thanks!  Is this meant as a general "reviewed-by" for all of the
> patches or just this specific one?

Thank you for taking this as a separate kexec tests, I think it can be used for these delta fixes

I read all the patches and reviewed the kexec stuff, but I do not
understand all the IMA logic yet although I did some simple ima
tests.

Thanks
Dave