[LTP] [PATCH 1/2] lib: Add tst_selinux_enforcing()

[Li Wang]

Hi Petr,

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 2:32 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> Co-developed-by: Mete Durlu <meted@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
>

This patch is doing the same work as security_getenforce() which provides
by 'selinux/selinux.h', but it is still worth having it because we do not
want ltp
has many extra dependencies (e.g. libselinux-devel).

Reviewed-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>



> ---
> Hi,
>
> @Li, Cyril:
> 1) I guess we want to distinguish EACCES for SELinux enforcing, right?
> If not, this commit would be dropped and second commit would just use
>
>         const int exp_errs[] = {tc->expected_errno, EACCES};
>
>         TST_EXP_FAIL_ARR(fanotify_mark(fanotify_fd, FAN_MARK_ADD |
> tc->mark.flags,
>                          tc->mask.flags, dirfd, path),
>                          exp_errs);
>
> 2) Some time ago I proposed to merge some lib/*.c files, not
> just have so many files with single functions in the library. E.g.
> lib/tst_fips.c, lib/tst_selinux.c, lib/tst_lockdown.c could be merged
> into lib/tst_security.c. Or do we want to have these separate?
>

I think the answer is Yes. There are more and more lib/*.c files with
some trivial features, which bring troubles for reading/managing the
library. It is necessary to archive and merge the same thing.



>
> When I proposed this, I wanted to merge files, which have the same name
> as the single function in the file (e.g. tst_dir_is_empty.c,
> tst_path_has_mnt_flags.c), having them as single file does not help much
> with searching for the content.
>

+1

And the most important is we need to give a good name for the
achieved header file.


-- 
Regards,
Li Wang