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: <201910301205.74EC2A226D@keescook>
Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 12:09:40 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
        Matthias Maennich <maennich@...gle.com>,
        shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>, jmorris@...ei.org,
        serge@...lyn.com, Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, 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 24, 2019 at 10:15:29AM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 05:42:18PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > With that, I think the best solution in this case will be the
> > "__visible_for_testing" route. It has no overhead when testing is
> > turned off (in fact it is no different in anyway when testing is
> > turned off). The downsides I see are:
> > 
> > 1) You may not be able to test non-module code not compiled for
> > testing later with the test modules that Alan is working on (But the
> > only way I think that will work is by preventing the symbol from being
> > inlined, right?).
> > 
> > 2) I think "__visible_for_testing" will be prone to abuse. Here, I
> > think there are reasons why we might want to expose these symbols for
> > testing, but not otherwise. Nevertheless, I think most symbols that
> > should be tested should probably be made visible by default. Since you
> > usually only want to test your public interfaces. I could very well
> > see this getting used as a kludge that gets used far too frequently.
> 
> There are two parts to your statement on 2):
> 
>   a) possible abuse of say __visible_for_testing

I really don't like the idea of littering the kernel with these. It'll
also require chunks in header files wrapped in #ifdefs. This is really
ugly.

>   b) you typically only want to test your public interfaces

True, but being able to test the little helper functions is a nice
starting point and a good building block.

Why can't unit tests live with the code they're testing? They're already
logically tied together; what's the harm there? This needn't be the case
for ALL tests, etc. The test driver could still live externally. The
test in the other .c would just have exported functions... ?

-- 
Kees Cook