linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack

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: <CAAXuY3rLEt9nqOBSNaWjLMHNg6pDHdjtg7hFiYx-KCDhyfnkcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:33:56 -0700
From:   Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>, john.johansen@...onical.com,
        jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        alan.maguire@...cle.com, davidgow@...gle.com,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Salvatore <mike.salvatore@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit
 tests for policy unpack

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:19 PM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@...gle.com> wrote:

> +config SECURITY_APPARMOR_TEST
> +       bool "Build KUnit tests for policy_unpack.c"
> +       default n
> +       depends on KUNIT && SECURITY_APPARMOR
> +       help
>
select SECURITY_APPARMOR ?
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, TEST_BLOB_DATA_SIZE);
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test,
> +               memcmp(blob, TEST_BLOB_DATA, TEST_BLOB_DATA_SIZE) == 0);
I think this must be  KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, size, TEST_BLOB_DATA_SIZE);,
otherwise there could be a buffer overflow in memcmp. All tests that
follow such pattern
are suspect. Also, not sure about your stylistic preference for
KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test,
               memcmp(blob, TEST_BLOB_DATA, TEST_BLOB_DATA_SIZE) == 0);
vs
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test,
               0,
               memcmp(blob, TEST_BLOB_DATA, TEST_BLOB_DATA_SIZE));