[LTP] [PATCH] ima_violations.sh: Another fix of condition evaluation

[Andrea Cervesato]

Hi!

On Thu Dec 11, 2025 at 12:10 PM CET, Petr Vorel wrote:
> c0c35509f9 was not enough to fix evaluation against empty
> $expected_violations:
>
> ima_violations 1 TINFO: verify open writers violation
> /opt/ltp/testcases/bin/ima_violations.sh: line 96: [: 0: unary operator expected
>
> Therefore split checks into two if.
>
> Also improvements (readability)
> * shorten line length with saving subtraction into variable
> * evaluate empty variable with ${:-}
>
> Fixes: 726ed71905 ("ima_violations.sh: Update validate() to support multiple violations")
> Reported-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> ---
> NOTE: this was found on old SLES 4.4 based kernel which does not log
> validations. But missing validations might be just a Secure Boot related
> setup problem:
>
> $ mokutil --sb-state
> Secure Boot: EFI variables not supported on SUT
>
> Events are logged when Secure Boot is off:
> $ mokutil --sb-state
> SecureBoot disabled
>
> Or maybe violations worked differently on the old kernel (I remember
> only 6.15 change).
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
>  .../integrity/ima/tests/ima_violations.sh     | 21 ++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_violations.sh b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_violations.sh
> index 1d2f1d9447..a8476e6b59 100755
> --- a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_violations.sh
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_violations.sh
> @@ -87,23 +87,30 @@ validate()
>  	local search="$3"
>  	local expected_violations="$4"
>  	local max_attempt=3
> -	local count2 i num_violations_new
> +	local count2 diff i num_violations_new pass
>  
>  	for i in $(seq 1 $max_attempt); do
>  		read num_violations_new < $IMA_VIOLATIONS
>  		count2="$(get_count $search)"
> -		if [ -z "$expected_violations" -a $(($num_violations_new - $num_violations)) -gt 0 ] || \
> -		   [ $(($num_violations_new - $num_violations)) -eq $expected_violations ]; then
> -			[ -z "$expected_violations" ] && expected_violations=1
> +		diff=$(($num_violations_new - $num_violations))
> +
> +		if [ "$expected_violations" ] && [ $diff -eq $expected_violations ]; then
> +			pass=1
> +		fi
> +		if [ -z "$expected_violations" ] && [ $diff -gt 0 ]; then
> +			pass=1
> +		fi

Maybe readability can be improved (well..shell scripts are pretty ugly
by nature anyway):

	diff=$((num_violations_new - num_violations))

	if [ "$expected_violations" ]; then
		[ $diff -eq $expected_violations ] && pass=1
	else
		[ $diff -gt 0 ] && pass=1
	fi

> +
> +		if [ "$pass" = 1 ]; then
>  			if [ $count2 -gt $count ]; then
> -				tst_res TPASS "$expected_violations $search violation(s) added"
> +				tst_res TPASS "${expected_violations:-1} $search violation(s) added"
>  				return
>  			else
>  				tst_res TINFO "$search not found in $LOG ($i/$max_attempt attempt)..."
>  				tst_sleep 1s
>  			fi
> -		elif [ $(($num_violations_new - $num_violations)) -gt 0 ]; then
> -			tst_res $IMA_FAIL "$search too many violations added: $num_violations_new - $num_violations"
> +		elif [ $diff -gt 0 ]; then
> +			tst_res $IMA_FAIL "$search too many violations added: $diff ($num_violations_new - $num_violations)"
>  			return
>  		else
>  			tst_res $IMA_FAIL "$search violation not added"

-- 
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato@suse.com