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@google.com 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_APPARMORhelpselect 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.