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

[Brendan Higgins]

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:35 PM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:59 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> Oh, I almost missed this. I think the *_EQ(...) is better than the
> *_TRUE(...) because the EQ is able to provide more debug information
> if the test fails (otherwise there would really be no point in
> providing all these variants).
>
> Any objections?
>
> Thanks for the catch Iurii!

Wait, nevermind.

Either way is fine because memcmp probably won't show terribly
interesting information in the non-zero case. I'll just leave it the
way Mike wrote it.

Sorry!