Re: [PATCH] apparmor: fix policy_unpack_test on big endian systems
From: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Date: 2024-08-12 17:05:03
Also in:
lkml
On 8/8/24 08:59, Guenter Roeck wrote:
policy_unpack_test fails on big endian systems because data byte order
is expected to be little endian but is generated in host byte order.
This results in test failures such as:
# policy_unpack_test_unpack_array_with_null_name: EXPECTATION FAILED at security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c:150
Expected array_size == (u16)16, but
array_size == 4096 (0x1000)
(u16)16 == 16 (0x10)
# policy_unpack_test_unpack_array_with_null_name: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1
not ok 3 policy_unpack_test_unpack_array_with_null_name
# policy_unpack_test_unpack_array_with_name: EXPECTATION FAILED at security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c:164
Expected array_size == (u16)16, but
array_size == 4096 (0x1000)
(u16)16 == 16 (0x10)
# policy_unpack_test_unpack_array_with_name: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1
Add the missing endianness conversions when generating test data.
Fixes: 4d944bcd4e73 ("apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack")
Cc: Brendan Higgins <redacted>
Cc: Kees Cook <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>Looks good Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> I will pull this into my tree
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)diff --git a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c index 874fcf97794e..c64733d6c98f 100644 --- a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c +++ b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c@@ -80,14 +80,14 @@ static struct aa_ext *build_aa_ext_struct(struct policy_unpack_fixture *puf, *(buf + 1) = strlen(TEST_U32_NAME) + 1; strscpy(buf + 3, TEST_U32_NAME, e->end - (void *)(buf + 3)); *(buf + 3 + strlen(TEST_U32_NAME) + 1) = AA_U32; - *((u32 *)(buf + 3 + strlen(TEST_U32_NAME) + 2)) = TEST_U32_DATA; + *((__le32 *)(buf + 3 + strlen(TEST_U32_NAME) + 2)) = cpu_to_le32(TEST_U32_DATA); buf = e->start + TEST_NAMED_U64_BUF_OFFSET; *buf = AA_NAME; *(buf + 1) = strlen(TEST_U64_NAME) + 1; strscpy(buf + 3, TEST_U64_NAME, e->end - (void *)(buf + 3)); *(buf + 3 + strlen(TEST_U64_NAME) + 1) = AA_U64; - *((u64 *)(buf + 3 + strlen(TEST_U64_NAME) + 2)) = TEST_U64_DATA; + *((__le64 *)(buf + 3 + strlen(TEST_U64_NAME) + 2)) = cpu_to_le64(TEST_U64_DATA); buf = e->start + TEST_NAMED_BLOB_BUF_OFFSET; *buf = AA_NAME;@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static struct aa_ext *build_aa_ext_struct(struct policy_unpack_fixture *puf, *(buf + 1) = strlen(TEST_ARRAY_NAME) + 1; strscpy(buf + 3, TEST_ARRAY_NAME, e->end - (void *)(buf + 3)); *(buf + 3 + strlen(TEST_ARRAY_NAME) + 1) = AA_ARRAY; - *((u16 *)(buf + 3 + strlen(TEST_ARRAY_NAME) + 2)) = TEST_ARRAY_SIZE; + *((__le16 *)(buf + 3 + strlen(TEST_ARRAY_NAME) + 2)) = cpu_to_le16(TEST_ARRAY_SIZE); return e; }