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: <20191019183643.GG11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
Date:   Sat, 19 Oct 2019 18:36:43 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Matthias Maennich <maennich@...gle.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
        john.johansen@...onical.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, yzaikin@...gle.com, davidgow@...gle.com,
        tytso@....edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        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 Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 01:56:01PM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:18:16PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > From: Mike Salvatore <mike.salvatore@...onical.com>
> > > 
> > > In order to write the tests against the policy unpacking code, some
> > > static functions needed to be exposed for testing purposes. One of the
> > > goals of this patch is to establish a pattern for which testing these
> > > kinds of functions should be done in the future.
> > 
> > And you'd run into the same situation expressed elsewhere with kunit of
> > an issue of the kunit test as built-in working but if built as a module
> > then it would not work, given the lack of exports. Symbols namespaces
> > should resolve this [0], and we'd be careful where a driver imports this
> > namespace.
> > 
> > [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/798254/
> >
> 
> Thanks for the link! Looks interesting for us definitely!
> 
> WRT adding tests, I think what we're aiming at is a set of best practices 
> to advise test developers using KUnit, while attempting to minimize 
> side-effects of any changes we need to make to support testability.
> 
> One aspect of this we probably have to consider is inlining of code. 

Sure. Makes sense.

  Luis