On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 10:54:21 -0400 Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Tue, 2021-08-31 at 20:12 -0600, Alex Henrie wrote: > > Hello, could I get some feedback on this patch? Are there any > > objections to including it upstream? > > Conceptually I don't have a problem with the patch, but I'd also like a > test to go with it. > > Roberto posted "ima-evm-utils: Add UML support and tests for EVM > portable signatures", which introduces using UML (User Mode Linux) for > testing new kernel features, which, unfortunately, still needs to be > reviewed and upstreamed. (Hint, hint help with reviewing.] > > Another option is to define an LTP test. In either case, a custom IMA > policy would be defined in terms of a loopback mounted filesystem to > avoid affecting the entire system. > > I'd appreciate your re-basing and re-posting this patch. > > thanks, > > Mimi > Thanks for the feedback! The UML tests are intriguing and I will be interested to see how they work out. However, I think the tests for this particular patch fit better with the existing LTP tests. I will send a rebased kernel patch and an LTP patch. -Alex
