Hi, > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > runtest/ima | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/runtest/ima b/runtest/ima > > index 20d2e0810..3462d12b1 100644 > > --- a/runtest/ima > > +++ b/runtest/ima > > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > > #DESCRIPTION:Integrity Measurement Architecture (IMA) > > -ima01 ima_measurements.sh > > -ima02 ima_policy.sh > > +ima01 ima_policy.sh > > +ima02 ima_measurements.sh > > ima03 ima_tpm.sh > > ima04 ima_violations.sh > Uh, depending on order of testcases in runtest file is broken anyways, > what is the real problem here? If system is configured with no policy, ima_measurements.sh fails. ima_policy.sh loads some policy (if none loaded) / adds to policy (if policy already loaded and it's allowed by kernel). So, the first case prevents failing ima_measurements.sh. One problem with IMA testing I see is that IMHO it's not possible to revert policy. That's why I added warnings that reboot is required. I know that this is against LTP principle. Mimi, Dmitry, am I right? > Also I suppose that we may as well rename the test ids (e.g. ima01) to > match the shell script name, since I find it more descriptive. Sure! Kind regards, Petr
