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

From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>, shuah <shuah@kernel.org>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
	jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com,
	Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>,
	David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mike Salvatore <mike.salvatore@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 16:37:16 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g47Qn7ESPLvm9t_ifGPhjJ9dXgV9KVObg64bN3UNnoQPdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFd5g47gfEJqRUW1PR1rtgrzekwLVqRRw0iJ4EVRW4xzUiW2Yw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:35 PM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:59 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> 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@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.
>
> 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!