> Quoting Subrata Modak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Sergei,
> >
> > I have merged Stephen?? Patches sent on 24/01/2008, which modifies:
> >
> > ltp/testcases/kernel/security/selinux-testsuite/README
> > ltp/testcases/kernel/security/selinux-testsuite/misc/sbin_deprecated.patch
> >
> > Could you let me know whether this replaces the need for your Patch, or
> > your Patch (sent on 29/01/2008) is still needed to be applied. If
>
> Sigh, this gets to be a pain since I'm sending a patch to a patch :)
> But attached are two patches still needed on top of today's cvs.
These have been merged. Thanks.
--Subrata
>
> Stephen, actually with these patches the testsuite hangs at
> selinux_create. I need unconfined_runs_test() to give $1
> unconfined_t:process { sigchld}, which the patch I sent earlier did.
> The patch you had sent out didn't, so I just wnat to make sure - is
> there a reason not to do that?
>
> If not, I'll just send out another patch fater Subrata applies these
> two to add that one line.
>
> thanks,
> -serge
>
> > modifications need to be done, then please send me an updated one, diff
> > of present ltp cvs. Thanks
> >
> > --Subrata
> >
> >
> > > Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 11:37 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 07:20 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > > > > > Here is a patch against this morning's ltp cvs snapshot to
> > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > Stephen's suggestion of setting expand-check=0 for the duration
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the policy load. This allowed me to get rid of the hack
> > > > > > > > ++domain_type(test_create_no_t) in
> > > > > > > > refpolicy/test_task_create.te, also
> > > > > > > > done in this patch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (I think it also inlines a patch Stephen sent on jan 23 which
> > > > > > > > wasn't yet in ltp cvs)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as I can tell, no one has merged the two patches that I
> > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > earlier, which explains why you are still seeing failures (the
> > > > > > > one patch
> > > > > > > I sent added permissions needed for the tests). I've seen no
> > > > > > > reply to
> > > > > > > my patches, although I've seen other patches responded to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, I see that your patch does include the permissions from my
> > > > > > patch (still not sure why my patch hasn't been merged), so I don't
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > why you'd still be seeing failures. I only get 3 failures with my
> > > > > > patch applied, on inherit and fdreceive (due to Fedora 8 policy
> > > > > > granting
> > > > > > fd:use permission liberally to all domains) and on task_create (due
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the refpolicy granting process:fork to all domains), so I would only
> > > > > > expect you to get 2 failures after your patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting. I'll look into some these on Friday. Here is the list
> > > > > of
> > > > > failures btw:
> > > >
> > > > Are you running mcstrans? If not, start it first.
> > > >
> > > > Original testsuite predates MCS/MLS and thus when it fabricates security
> > > > contexts, it doesn't include a MCS/MLS level. mcstrans makes that
> > > > transparent and thus it just works. Alternatively, the test scripts
> > > > could be made a bit smarter.
> > >
> > > Ah, that brought my # failures down to 5 :)
> > >
> > > t Start Time: Wed Jan 30 09:39:18 2008
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Testcase Result Exit Value
> > > -------- ------ ----------
> > > SELinux01 PASS 0
> > > SELinux02 PASS 0
> > > SELinux03 PASS 0
> > > SELinux04 PASS 0
> > > SELinux05 PASS 0
> > > SELinux06 PASS 0
> > > SELinux07 PASS 0
> > > SELinux08 PASS 0
> > > SELinux09 FAIL 1
> > > SELinux10 FAIL 2
> > > SELinux11 FAIL 1
> > > SELinux12 PASS 0
> > > SELinux13 PASS 0
> > > SELinux14 FAIL 1
> > > SELinux15 PASS 0
> > > SELinux16 PASS 0
> > > SELinux17 PASS 0
> > > SELinux18 PASS 0
> > > SELinux19 FAIL 1
> > > SELinux20 PASS 0
> > > SELinux21 PASS 0
> > > SELinux22 PASS 0
> > > SELinux23 PASS 0
> > > SELinux24 PASS 0
> > > SELinux25 PASS 0
> > > SELinux26 PASS 0
> > > SELinux27 PASS 0
> > > SELinux28 PASS 0
> > > SELinux29 PASS 0
> > > SELinux30 PASS 0
> > > SELinux31 PASS 0
> > > SELinux32 PASS 0
> > > SELinux33 PASS 0
> > > SELinux34 PASS 0
> > > SELinux35 PASS 0
> > > SELinux36 PASS 0
> > > SELinux37 PASS 0
> > > SELinux38 PASS 0
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------
> > > Total Tests: 38
> > > Total Failures: 5
> > > Kernel Version: 2.6.23.1-42.fc8
> > > Machine Architecture: i686
> > > Hostname: localhost.localdomain
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > -serge
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ltp-list mailing list
> > > Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
