[RFC PATCH] audit-testsuite: tests for subject and object correctness

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:19 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at 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 <casey at 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