[LTP] [PATCH] lib: lockdown: Report lockdown as disabled on missing sysfs

[Martin Doucha]

Hi,

On 20. 09. 23 20:17, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
>>> We currently report -1 when secure boot sysfs file is not present which
>>> is later interpreted as secure boot enabled. This causes regression in
>>> *_module sycall tests executed on systems when secureboot is not
>>> compiled-in or supported at all.
>>
>> That's incorrect usage then. The tests should check
>> tst_secureboot_enabled() > 0 instead. I think it will be useful to know
>> whether the function found that secureboot is disabled, or could not
>> check at all. We should just document it better.
> 
> Yes, the functions do not seem to have any documentation.
> 
> So I guess that we need:
> 
> diff --git a/lib/tst_test.c b/lib/tst_test.c
> index 2e58cad33..e2c195645 100644
> --- a/lib/tst_test.c
> +++ b/lib/tst_test.c
> @@ -1163,10 +1163,10 @@ static void do_setup(int argc, char *argv[])
>          if (tst_test->supported_archs && !tst_is_on_arch(tst_test->supported_archs))
>                  tst_brk(TCONF, "This arch '%s' is not supported for test!", tst_arch.name);
> 
> -       if (tst_test->skip_in_lockdown && tst_lockdown_enabled())
> +       if (tst_test->skip_in_lockdown && tst_lockdown_enabled() > 0)
>                  tst_brk(TCONF, "Kernel is locked down, skipping test");
> 
> -       if (tst_test->skip_in_secureboot && tst_secureboot_enabled())
> +       if (tst_test->skip_in_secureboot && tst_secureboot_enabled() > 0)
>                  tst_brk(TCONF, "SecureBoot enabled, skipping test");
> 
>          if (tst_test->skip_in_compat && TST_ABI != tst_kernel_bits())
> 

Yes, this is the correct fix.

-- 
Martin Doucha   mdoucha@suse.cz
SW Quality Engineer
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
CORSO IIa
Krizikova 148/34
186 00 Prague 8
Czech Republic