From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F87CA9EC6 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:59:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8E6204FD for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:59:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="ngQ4YsXE" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727207AbfJ3S7E (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:59:04 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f195.google.com ([209.85.215.195]:38794 "EHLO mail-pg1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726884AbfJ3S7E (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:59:04 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f195.google.com with SMTP id k10so768148pgm.5 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:59:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=lydW9atQW2RqhX2w9FQSYN22+fl/dNiMF69085WMHtM=; b=ngQ4YsXEu3hNnNn3MSw8hh8vZ5syLFrqYQcNZ6AnbPi7LDobSUUnL9sWE4OlkQghF8 yYdjVJJ6Detmtfk4AntUsuUYUFDP9MTXrG+RdAPrgHZXXDqgzoakrJw1DnjVbg19fYzo z/kw/vK6g7IcWfCMXQ03sOl7rkKhj5iGdxf9k= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=lydW9atQW2RqhX2w9FQSYN22+fl/dNiMF69085WMHtM=; b=jJjEtU3ahf3aLdJM/X5msvyVVAKpQjVhpcOvGd/8OFEI+lOsbQy8p9qiY7/k0u5K3v KCUm7XuItS3FwunwUIXlmX/SFMhT4gs8296PoZWXBtYnaR4c/hlZK35JnpY4zBLLmMNA 418rYmKpmR7IhAmM/Sg5itNVIDAcbkWXr7oGVrp0iUUVNvRSBOCZ6tSkdqzizYlpDSCJ r/KYce2rVf0+q44A/sHd8jfr3AGto6Db3QCDUDjphOZ1kq+A7pvRE+3hYjg7pBEfbxqb 4vvaGdxqOQkFMjSXMIk6dEYBXrKjh1rcLFJxudzfsHfur7jHQuU3LGRMqJUm5/JopZM2 AO8g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXcekY7bFCv8iCmy5S2ohExQdUKCiECATBeI1Ut5p2xSv9NBvn9 ddtvt0xR0fB1dOj53kMa6xKZmQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyi6mqapjcTlpY6OS6+c0zNuBWc9Fp5Tnew7VwPk6+TzOYM8OkMJvisUME8Culvm6LoCo8NTg== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8ad9:: with SMTP id b25mr932975pfd.168.1572461942183; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c1sm3936091pjc.23.2019.10.30.11.59.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:59:00 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Iurii Zaikin Cc: Brendan Higgins , shuah , john.johansen@canonical.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, alan.maguire@oracle.com, davidgow@google.com, Luis Chamberlain , Theodore Ts'o , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, KUnit Development , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Mike Salvatore Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack Message-ID: <201910301157.58D0CE4D3@keescook> References: <20191018001816.94460-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:33:56PM -0700, Iurii Zaikin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:19 PM Brendan Higgins > 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