Re: [PATCH 1/1] selinux-testsuite: Update binder test applications

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 3:31 PM Dominick Grift <dac.override@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:37 PM Richard Haines
> > <richard_c_haines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2019-04-12 at 10:46 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:07 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On the negative side I realized when playing with your test changes
> >> > > that I wasn't building BINDERFS in my test kernels - oops.  I'm
> >> > > fixing
> >> > > that now, but I might not get a chance to do another test until
> >> > > tomorrow; at least I can verify that your BINDERFS testing logic
> >> > > works
> >> > > :)
> >> >
> >> > I rebuilt my test kernel (the latest "secnext" builds have it) with
> >> > BINDERFS only to realize that Fedora Rawhide doesn't seem to ship
> >> > /usr/include/linux/android/binderfs.h so I manually copied the file
> >> > from the kernel-devel package only to run into this when building the
> >> > new binder tests:
> >> >
> >> > # make
> >> > cc -DHAVE_BINDERFS    check_binder.c binder_common.c binder_common.h
> >> > -lselinux -lrt -o check_binder
> >> > binder_common.c: In function ‘cmd_name’:
> >> > binder_common.c:35:7: error: ‘BR_TRANSACTION_SEC_CTX’ undeclared
> >> > (first use in t
> >> > his function); did you mean ‘BC_TRANSACTION_SG’?
> >> >   35 |  case BR_TRANSACTION_SEC_CTX:
> >> >      |       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >      |       BC_TRANSACTION_SG
> >> > binder_common.c:35:7: note: each undeclared identifier is reported
> >> > only once for
> >> > each function it appears in
> >> > binder_common.c: In function ‘print_trans_data’:
> >> > binder_common.c:126:23: error: ‘FLAT_BINDER_FLAG_TXN_SECURITY_CTX’
> >> > undeclared (f
> >> > irst use in this function)
> >> >  126 |          obj->flags & FLAT_BINDER_FLAG_TXN_SECURITY_CTX ?
> >> > "YES" : "NO");
> >> >      |                       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> > make: *** [<builtin>: check_binder] Error 1
> >> > # grep "BR_TRANSACTION_SEC_CTX" *
> >> > binder_common.c:        case BR_TRANSACTION_SEC_CTX:
> >> > binder_common.c:                return "BR_TRANSACTION_SEC_CTX";
> >> > service_provider.c:             case BR_TRANSACTION_SEC_CTX: {
> >> > # grep "BR_TRANSACTION_SEC_CTX" /usr/include/linux/android/binderfs.h
> >> > # grep "BR_TRANSACTION_SEC_CTX" /usr/include/linux/android/binder.h
> >> >
> >> > ... and that's when I stopped playing with this.  If it helps, I
> >> > pulled my binderfs.h file from a current Rawhide kernel.  What are
> >> > you
> >> > using to run these tests?
> >> >
> >> > At the very least, I'm thinking we'll also want to include some notes
> >> > in the README.md file under the "Optional Prerequisites" section
> >> > about
> >> > how to get this running with BINDERFS.
> >>
> >> The BR_TRANSACTION_SEC_CTX is defined in an updated binder.h file, so
> >> you need both binder.h and binderfs.h from devel.
> >>
> >> I guess I must have copied them over by hand as I tested on rawhide.
> >> I'll add a note in the README.md file.
> >
> > Okay, that solved the problem, thanks.
> >
> > I just noticed that the kernel-headers package on my Rawhide systems
> > are *really* old.  I suspect this may be due to the fact that I'm not
> > running Fedora Rawhide kernels and thus my currently installed kernel
> > packages don't match what is present in the main Rawhide repos; this
> > problem might be limited to just me (and anyone exclusively running
> > the secnext kernels on their system).
> >
> > Can anyone with a Rawhide system confirm if they have the
> > /usr/include/linux/android/binderfs.h header file?
>
> [root@brutus ~]# rpm -qf /usr/include/linux/android/binderfs.h
> kernel-headers-5.1.0-0.rc2.git1.1.fc31.x86_64

Thanks.

I realized today that last summer Fedora changed how they package the
kernel headers and thus I need to update how I build my test kernels.
As an aside, I don't get why the change was made, this new process for
building the kernel-headers package is *really* convoluted ... and
broken if you are using a custom %buildid (which I do for "secnext"
builds), but that's a different issue.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com




[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux