[apparmor] query_label regression test failures
steve at nxnw.org
Mon Jul 13 09:25:15 UTC 2015
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 01:40:40AM -0700, Steve Beattie wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:04:37PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> > So after further investigation there are a couple of problems.
> > 1. The test is using the wrong defines: It is using the defines from the
> > parser for the packed dfa permissions. This set of permissions is not
> > meant to be exposed to the outside world
> > 2. The kernel is using the wrong mapping function for the permissions
> > in the file class. This results in partially exposing the packed
> > permissions, but even then it doesn't fully line up with the packed
> > permissions, and is not correct for several of the potential permissions.
> > Attached is a patch that fixes the test, and moves the two tests that
> > fail due to the kernel to xpass.
> > === modified file 'tests/regression/apparmor/query_label.c'
> > --- tests/regression/apparmor/query_label.c 2015-05-28 19:48:46 +0000
> > +++ tests/regression/apparmor/query_label.c 2015-07-10 20:45:07 +0000
> > @@ -35,28 +35,68 @@
> > #define AA_MAY_APPEND (1 << 3)
> > #endif
> > +#ifndef AA_MAY_CREATE
> > +#define AA_MAY_CREATE (1 << 4)
> > +#endif
> The reason I haven't submitted a patch that fixes the macro
> redefinition compilation warnings in the link_subset test in the same
> way as you do here is that, at least for that test, one of the
> definitions that it copied from the parser, AA_MAY_MOUNT, is not
> exported through the libapparmor headers. I'm not sure if that's a
> change or not, because it had defined all its macros without including
> external headers.
> The problem this highlights is that if, in the future, the macro
> definitions get changed *and* possibly some of them disappear a
> la AA_MAY_MOUNT, some of the definitions will get pulled from the
> libapparmor exported header *and some won't* and then it's possible
> that multiple macro definitions might map to the same value, which
> is almost certainly problematic.
> And for Tyler's benefit, hiding the definitions behind a function call
> doesn't really help if the value definitions can go away with
> libapparmor changes and default values are used.
> That said, I don't have a good solution for how to verify that all
> the macro definitions are internally consistent and don't define
> multiple macros to the same value. The only way I can come up with is
> to not define the macros at all in the tests, and rely solely on the
> libapparmor macro definitions, and then if some of those go away due to
> interface changes, the tests and other consumers break at compile time.
Oh right, I remember now; the problem with just doing this is then the
tests fail to compile in the USE_SYSTEM=1 case with apparmor 2.9 and
older which doesn't publicly expose these definitions.
<sbeattie at ubuntu.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the AppArmor