[PATCH] apparmor: fix policy_unpack_test on big endian systems

[John Johansen]

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 <brendanhiggins at google.com>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net>

Looks good

Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen at canonical.com>

I will pull this into my tree

> ---
>   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;
>   }