On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:02:11PM +0100, Christian Boltz wrote: > this patch adds some tests for aa.py check_for_apparmor(). > > It also changes check_for_apparmor() to allow easier testing by optionally > specifying alternative locations for /proc/filesystems and /proc/mounts > as parameter. > > I ran this testcase also with the old code (before applying Peter's patch). > The old code raised an unexpected TypeError in > if not valid_path(aa_mountpoint + '/profiles'): > if aa_mountpoint was None. After temporarily fixing that in my local > copy, all tests passed. (No patch for that since Peter's patch fixed > that anyway.) > > Needless to say that the tests also pass with Peter's patch applied. > > Also note that the code in check_for_apparmor() differs from what the > comment says - valid_path() only does syntax checks, but doesn't > check if the directory exists. I added a comment saying exactly that. > > Currently things could explode if securityfs is mounted, but AppArmor > is disabled in the kernel (assumption based on reading the code, not > tested). Fixing that is worth another patch ;-) - any volunteers?
> [ add-aa.py-check_for_apparmor-tests.diff ] Acked-by: Steve Beattie <[email protected]> Thanks! I really appreciate the effort of going in and backfilling tests. -- Steve Beattie <[email protected]> http://NxNW.org/~steve/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
