[LTP] [PATCH v1 1/1] ima: Add test for selinux measurement

[Lakshmi Ramasubramanian]

On 12/22/20 11:50 AM, Petr Vorel wrote:

> 
>>> @Lakshmi
>>> TL;DR: I added some fixes in my fork, branch ima/selinux.v2.draft,
>>> https://github.com/pevik/ltp/commits/ima/selinux.v2.draft
> 
>>> + added 3 additional commits, one of them as you as the author.
>>> I moved some functions to testcases/lib/tst_security.sh, renamed them.
>>> Can you please have a look and test? I don't have any SELinux machine.
> 
>> I'll take a look at the changes in your branch and test it with SELinux
>> enabled.
> Thanks!
> 
>>> @Mimi, all: any comment to this test? My changes are just LTP cleanup
>>> so you can comment it on this patchset.
>>> I suppose you get to this in January.
> 
>>> Some notes for my changes:
> 
>>> As files are quite similar (checks etc), I put both tests into single
>>> file ima_selinux.sh.
>> This should be fine.
> 
>> The reason I put the tests in different files was because I couldn't find a
>> way to run the tests independently (i mean - say, run the SELinux policy
>> measurement test but not the state measurement test or vice-versa).
> 
> Why do you need to run just one of them?
> If you really need to separate them (e.g. to require different OS setup for
> each) you could have 2 functions in single file, but run only one of them
> (TST_CNT not set, which means TST_CNT=1), doing selection with getopt switch?
> https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/Test-Writing-Guidelines#233-optional-command-line-parameters

This is good to know Petr. Thanks for the info.

> 
>>>> New functionality is being added to IMA to measure data provided by
>>>> kernel components. With this feature, IMA policy can be set to enable
>>>> measuring data provided by Linux Security Modules (LSM). Currently one
>>>> such LSM namely selinux is being updated to use this functionality.
>>>> This new functionality needs test automation in LTP.
> 
>>>> Add test cases which verify that the IMA subsystem correctly measures
>>>> the data provided by selinux.
> 
>>> Could you please put into commit message and test kernel commit hash relevant
>>> for the test. Is that 8861d0af642c646c8e148ce34c294bdef6f32f6a (merged into
>>> v5.10-rc1) or there are more relevant commits?
> 
>> The IMA hook to measure kernel critical data + SELinux measurement changes
>> are still being reviewed. Tushar has posted v9 of the patch set.
> Thanks for info (note for myself:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20201212180251.9943-1-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com/)
> OK, not yet merged to mainline. It's good you send patches early (speed up the
> inclusion to LTP), but we should merge them into LTP once it's at least
> already in Mimi tree prepared for sending to Linus.
> 
> Feel free to Cc me in your next kernel patches (It *can* help to speedup the inclusion to LTP).

Definitely.

> 
>>> ...
>>>> +### IMA SELinux test
>>>> +
>>>> +To enable IMA to measure SELinux state and policy, `ima_selinux_policy.sh`
>>>> +and `ima_selinux_state.sh` require a readable IMA policy, as well as
>>>> +a loaded measure policy with
>>>> +`measure func=CRITICAL_DATA data_sources=selinux template=ima-buf`
>>> I put this into
>>> testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/datafiles/ima_selinux/selinux.policy
>>> and mention it in docs.
>> Sounds good - Thanks.
> 
>> "template=ima_buf" is no longer needed in the IMA policy rule since
>> "ima_buf" is the default template for buffer measurement now. I will update
>> "datafiles/ima_selinux/selinux.policy" file.
> 
> +1
> 
> ...
> 
>> Thanks a lot for your help Petr. Appreciate it.
> yw, thanks for your contributions.
> 

thanks,
  -lakshmi