Hi Petr, On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 21:30 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote: > Although custom policy which contains tcb can be loaded via dracut, ^which may contain the equivalent measurement tcb rules > systemd or later manually from user space, detecting it would require > IMA_READ_POLICY=y. In order to simplify the check and avoid false > positives lets ignore this option and require builtin IMA tcb policy. This test is for adding new measurements to the measurement list. > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@xxxxxxx> > --- > .../kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_measurements.sh | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_measurements.sh b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_measurements.sh > index 328affc43..a3aa24d8a 100755 > --- a/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_measurements.sh > +++ b/testcases/kernel/security/integrity/ima/tests/ima_measurements.sh > @@ -57,7 +57,8 @@ setup() > [ -z "$DIGEST_INDEX" ] && tst_brk TCONF \ > "Cannot find digest index (template: '$template')" > > - tst_res TINFO "IMA measurement tests assume tcb policy to be loaded (ima_policy=tcb)" > + grep -q -e ima_policy=[a-z_]*tcb -e ima_tcb -e ima_appraise_tcb /proc/cmdline || \ > + tst_brk TCONF "IMA measurement tests require builtin IMA tcb policy (ima_policy=tcb or ima_policy=appraise_tcb kernel parameter)" > } > "appraise_tcb" doesn't provide the necessary measurement rules. "ima_policy=" isn't order specific. The check would be for "|tcb", "| tcb", "tcb|", "tcb |", or just "=tcb". The deprecated "ima_tcb" option is fine too. Mimi > # TODO: find support for rmd128 rmd256 rmd320 wp256 wp384 tgr128 tgr160
