Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:49:42 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4a 1/2] selftests/kexec: make tests independent of IMA
 being enabled
Message-ID: <20190326074942.GA19708@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
References: <1553283351-6310-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190325080935.GA12497@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <1553546236.5561.7.camel@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1553546236.5561.7.camel@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 03/25/19 at 04:37pm, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 16:09 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > Hi Mimi
> > On 03/22/19 at 03:35pm, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > Verify IMA is enabled before failing tests or emitting irrelevant
> > > messages.  Also, don't skip the test if signatures are not required.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > Dave, if this patch resolves the outstanding issues, I can fold these
> > > changes into the original patches. (Reminder, these patches will need to
> > > be updated to support the "lockdown" patch set.)
> > 
> > They looks good to me, thanks for the update
> 
> I've folded the kexec_file_load changes into the kexec_file_load test.
> ?The remaining kexec_load change is left as a separate patch, since it
> is dependent on the ikconfig change.
> 
> > Feel free to add my reviewed-by, I did some tests although not cover all
> > ima cases.
> 
> Thanks! ?Is this meant as a general "reviewed-by" for all of the
> patches or just this specific one?

Thank you for taking this as a separate kexec tests, I think it can be used for these delta fixes

I read all the patches and reviewed the kexec stuff, but I do not
understand all the IMA logic yet although I did some simple ima
tests.

Thanks
Dave