On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:19 PM Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2020-11-02 14:51, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > On 11/2/2020 2:08 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > On 2020-11-02 13:54, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > >> Verify that there are subj= and obj= fields in a record > > >> if and only if they are expected. A system without a security > > >> module that provides these fields should not include them. > > >> A system with multiple security modules providing these fields > > >> (e.g. SELinux and AppArmor) should always provide "?" for the > > >> data and also include a AUDIT_MAC_TASK_CONTEXTS or > > >> AUDIT_MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS record. The test uses the LSM list from > > >> /sys/kernel/security/lsm to determine which format is expected. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <ca...@schaufler-ca.com> > > >> --- > > >> tests/Makefile | 1 + > > >> tests/multiple_contexts/Makefile | 12 +++ > > >> tests/multiple_contexts/test | 166 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> 3 files changed, 179 insertions(+) > > >> create mode 100644 tests/multiple_contexts/Makefile > > >> create mode 100755 tests/multiple_contexts/test > > >> > > >> diff --git a/tests/Makefile b/tests/Makefile > > >> index a7f242a..f20f6b1 100644 > > >> --- a/tests/Makefile > > >> +++ b/tests/Makefile > > >> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ TESTS := \ > > >> file_create \ > > >> file_delete \ > > >> file_rename \ > > >> + multiple_contexts \ > > > "context" is a bit ambiguous. Could this be named something to indicate > > > a security context rather than any other sort, such as audit or user > > > context? > > > > Would "subj_obj_fields" be better? > > That is much more obvious to me. Maybe even sec_context_multi, but I > like your suggestion better?
How about just "multiple_lsms"? It's relatively concise and better reflects what it is actually being tested IMHO. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
