On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:59 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:33:56PM -0700, Iurii Zaikin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:19 PM Brendan Higgins > > <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > +config SECURITY_APPARMOR_TEST > > > + bool "Build KUnit tests for policy_unpack.c" > > > + default n > > New options already already default n, this can be left off. > > > > + depends on KUNIT && SECURITY_APPARMOR > > > + help > > > > > select SECURITY_APPARMOR ? > > "select" doesn't enforce dependencies, so just a "depends ..." is > correct. > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, TEST_BLOB_DATA_SIZE); > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, > > > + memcmp(blob, TEST_BLOB_DATA, TEST_BLOB_DATA_SIZE) == 0); > > I think this must be KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, size, TEST_BLOB_DATA_SIZE);, > > otherwise there could be a buffer overflow in memcmp. All tests that > > follow such pattern > > Agreed. > > > are suspect. Also, not sure about your stylistic preference for > > KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, > > memcmp(blob, TEST_BLOB_DATA, TEST_BLOB_DATA_SIZE) == 0); > > vs > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, > > 0, > > memcmp(blob, TEST_BLOB_DATA, TEST_BLOB_DATA_SIZE)); > > I like == 0. Oh, I almost missed this. I think the *_EQ(...) is better than the *_TRUE(...) because the EQ is able to provide more debug information if the test fails (otherwise there would really be no point in providing all these variants). Any objections? Thanks for the catch Iurii!
