On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:54 PM Richard Haines <richard_c_haines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-03-11 at 12:02 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:25 PM Richard Haines > > <richard_c_haines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [1] > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/patch/security/selinux?id=e4cfa05e9bfe286457082477b32ecd17737bdbce > > > [2] > > > https://lore.kernel.org/selinux/20200303225837.1557210-1-smayhew@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Even with the patches above applied, I am seeing failures during the > > tests/nfs_filesystem tests: > > Looks like my /mnt was mis-labeled. I've fixed and had to add this to > test_filesystem.te: > > files_mounton_non_security(filesystemdomain) > > and now works okay. Could you confirm please, then I'll resend new > patch later With that change to policy and no other changes, it then fails earlier during fs_filesystem/test as shown below even though the kernel does have the referenced patch (and it passes if I revert that policy change). Also, I noticed that as it is running the tests for filesystem and fs_filesystem, it shows a question mark (?) as the total/planned number of tests, suggesting a problem with the plan. ... filesystem/test ............. ok # Failed test 'Failed as kernel 5.6.0 without "selinux: fix regression introduced by move_mount(2) syscall" patch' # at fs_filesystem/test line 752. # Looks like you failed 1 test of 26. fs_filesystem/test .......... Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) Failed 1/26 subtests Test Summary Report ------------------- fs_filesystem/test (Wstat: 256 Tests: 26 Failed: 1) Failed test: 22 Non-zero exit status: 1 Files=63, Tests=623, 161 wallclock secs ( 0.33 usr 0.90 sys + 2.76 cusr 46.78 csys = 50.77 CPU) Result: FAIL Failed 1/63 test programs. 1/623 subtests failed.
