On 2020-11-06 16:51, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 11/2/2020 7:31 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > 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. > > I'm perfectly happy to call it whatever you'd prefer. > Anything substantive about the test itself?
The test looked reasonable to me... - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635 -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
