On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 02:10:52PM -0500, jeffm@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx>
>
> src/t_attr_corruption uses the security.evm extended attribute because
> it sorts before security.posix_acl_access. The security.evm attribute
> is a formatted structure and when passed an uninitialized buffer, it
> will fail with EPERM.
>
> We see test failures like:
> --- tests/generic/529.out2019-02-21 13:22:47.583406922 -0500
> +++ /opt/xfstests/results//generic/529.out.bad 2019-02-21 13:57:31.967406922 -0500
> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
> QA output created by 529
> -list attr: Numerical result out of range
> +set evm: Operation not permitted
>
> This patch uses security.capability which also sorts where it needs to
> do for the test and also accepts an unformatted buffer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> src/t_attr_corruption.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/t_attr_corruption.c b/src/t_attr_corruption.c
> index f26611f9..0c229dbc 100644
> --- a/src/t_attr_corruption.c
> +++ b/src/t_attr_corruption.c
> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> if (ret)
> die("set posix acl");
>
> - ret = fsetxattr(fd, "security.evm", buf, 1, 1);
> + ret = fsetxattr(fd, "security.capability", buf, 1, 1);
This fails for me both with and without EVM configured into my kernel:
fsetxattr(3, "security.capability", "\3", 1, XATTR_CREATE) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
Judging from fs/xattr.c it looks as though security.capability also has
a defined format that's parsed by security/commoncap.c...
--D
> if (ret)
> die("set evm");
>
> --
> 2.16.4
>
