lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:33:56PM -0700, Iurii Zaikin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:19 PM Brendan Higgins
> <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote:
>
> > +config SECURITY_APPARMOR_TEST
> > + bool "Build KUnit tests for policy_unpack.c"
> > + default n

New options already already default n, this can be left off.

> > + depends on KUNIT && SECURITY_APPARMOR
> > + help
> >
> select SECURITY_APPARMOR ?

"select" doesn't enforce dependencies, so just a "depends ..." is
correct.

> > + 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

Agreed.

> 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));

I like == 0.

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-30 20:00    [W:0.117 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site