| |||||||||||||
Complete coverage in Linux security modulesComplete coverage in Linux security modulesPosted Oct 6, 2005 20:13 UTC (Thu) by thoffman (subscriber, #3063)Parent article: Complete coverage in Linux security modules
Why are there not published regression tests which would catch this sort of thing immediately?
Surely the NSA and other SELinux developers have (or should have!) test sets which load a variety of different security modules, and then run multiple sequences of user programs which both verify that what should be allowed IS allowed, and what should not be allowed is not allowed.
It's really an embarrassment that any bug like this could be unnoticed for so long, I can't think of any excuse for it other than lack of motivation to really test the code.
(Log in to post comments)
Complete coverage in Linux security modules Posted Oct 7, 2005 9:01 UTC (Fri) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] I'd be surprised if a comprehensive test suite doesn't exist. This particular bug wouldn't show up in such a test since before you read or write to a file, you need to open it. If the checks on open work, then the checks on readv/writev will never do anything interesting. The only reason for implementing them, as far as I can see, is to limit the damage done if someone finds a way to break the security checks on open.
|
|||||||||||||