Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack

[Brendan Higgins]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:02 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 02:41:38PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 9:25 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:43:07PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > > > +config SECURITY_APPARMOR_TEST
> > > > > +   bool "Build KUnit tests for policy_unpack.c"
> > > > > +   default n
> > > > > +   depends on KUNIT && SECURITY_APPARMOR
> > > >
> > > > Ted, here is an example where doing select on direct dependencies is
> > > > tricky because SECURITY_APPARMOR has a number of indirect dependencies.
> > >
> > > Well, that could be solved by adding a select on all of the indirect
> > > dependencies.  I did get your point about the fact that we could have
> >
> > In this particular case that would work.
> >
> > > cases where the indirect dependencies might conflict with one another.
> > > That's going to be a tough situation regardless of whether we have a
> > > sat-solver or a human who has to struggle with that situation.
> >
> > But yeah, that's the real problem.
>
> I think at this stage we want to make it _possible_ to write tests
> sanely without causing all kinds of headaches. I think "build all the
> tests" can just be a function of "allmodconfig" and leave it at that
> until we have cases we really need to deal with.

That...appears to work. I really can't see any reason why that isn't
good enough for now.

I am surprised that this hasn't been suggested yet.

Thanks!