Quoting Stephen Smalley (s...@tycho.nsa.gov): > On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 12:23 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting CAI Qian (caiq...@cclom.cn): > > > Hi, > > > > > to me the test here has a different testing focus -- try to read > > > > > every entry in /proc > > > > > filesystem. Those entries belong to this filesystem, so we'll read > > > > > them the same > > > > > way. Who knows if those entries will not give us a hang or panic or > > > > > behaving > > > > > badly with certain read buffers? SELinux test suite may or may not > > > > > catch those > > > > > kind of bugs. > > > > > > > > Then add tests in there... > > > > > > > > > > No, they do not belong there, because we are focus on testing of proc > > > filesystem here. The test case here should not care about the content it > > > read, but rather what the kernel behaves when to read those files. > > > > Then the dummy lsm I suggested is the only way to really test what you > > want :) > > That's not really a serious suggestion, right? If the proc01 test
Well if he really wants to test the procfs part of it, then he should be testing reading and writing of various sizes... But no. > I think his concern is that it will obscure an actual bug in SELinux in > the future. I thought he was worried not about any SELinux bugs, but bugs in the way procfs passes data to/from selinux. > I don't care strongly about it either way - the selinux testsuite is > what you should be using to exercise SELinux, and just booting and > logging into a SELinux-enabled system will exercise many if not all of > those interfaces. Ok, I'm sorry, I'm dragging this out. I'll stop, I promise. -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
