libsmack-tests: fix errors to conform to kernel behaviour.

[Issue#]       N/A
[Bug]          Tests expect query for unknown rule to return "0", but they return
               "-1". Expected "1 when asking for empty permissions, but "1" is
               returned.
[Cause]        Libsmack tests assume different Smack behaviour than Smack author.
[Solution]     Adjust our tests.
[Verification] Run libsmack-tests.

Change-Id: Icbc1cbcbc2b95b973b9da3fd5483486e7b4909d7

diff --git a/tests/libsmack-tests/test_cases.cpp b/tests/libsmack-tests/test_cases.cpp
index c8c733a..1a75266 100644 (file)
--- a/tests/libsmack-tests/test_cases.cpp
+++ b/tests/libsmack-tests/test_cases.cpp
@@ -586,8 +586,8 @@ RUNNER_TEST(smack02_aplying_rules_into_kernel)
     RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 1, "Error while checking Smack access");
     result = smack_have_access("reader", "book", "rwx");    //should have no access - wrong rule, should be "r" only
     RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 0, "Error while checking Smack access");
-    result = smack_have_access("mars", "book", "rwx");      //should have no acces - rule not exist
-    RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 0, "Error while checking Smack access");
+    result = smack_have_access("mars", "book", "rwx");      //should fail - rule not exist
+    RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == -1, "Error while checking Smack access");
 
     //int smack_revoke_subject(const char *subject);
     result = smack_revoke_subject("snickers");  //this subject do not exist in kernel rules
@@ -597,8 +597,6 @@ RUNNER_TEST(smack02_aplying_rules_into_kernel)
 
     result = smack_have_access("spy", "book", "rwx");                   //testing access after revoke_subject() from kernel
     RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 0, "Error in acces aplied to kernel");  //now spy should have no access
-    result = smack_have_access("spy", "book", "-----");                 //and should have "-----" rule
-    RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 1, "Error in acces aplied to kernel");
 
     result = smack_accesses_add(rules, "twix", "book", "rwx");          //for create new rule as a consequence of use accesses_clear() below
     RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 0, "Unable to add smack rules");
@@ -609,10 +607,6 @@ RUNNER_TEST(smack02_aplying_rules_into_kernel)
 
     result = smack_have_access("writer", "book", "rwx");                //testing acces after acces_clear()
     RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 0, "Error in acces aplied to kernel");  //now writer also should have no access
-    result = smack_have_access("writer", "book", "-----");              //and should have "-----" rule
-    RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 1, "Error in acces aplied to kernel");
-    result = smack_have_access("twix", "book", "-----");                //rule created by calling accesses_clear()
-    RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 1, "Error in acces aplied to kernel");
 
     //free resources
     smack_accesses_free(rules);
@@ -646,6 +640,7 @@ RUNNER_TEST(smack03_mixed_rule_string_add)
     struct smack_accesses *rules = NULL;        //rules prepared in this test case
     int result;                                 //for storing functions results
     int i;
+    int expected;
 
     result = smack_accesses_new(&rules);        //rules struct init
     RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 0, "Unable to create smack_accesses instance");
@@ -667,8 +662,12 @@ RUNNER_TEST(smack03_mixed_rule_string_add)
 
     //checking accesses using normal rules
     for (i = 0; i < (3 * 8); i += 3) {
+        if (!strcmp(rules_tab[i + 2], "-----"))
+            expected = 0;
+        else
+            expected = 1;
         result = smack_have_access(rules_tab[i], "book", rules_tab[i + 2]); //using normal rules from table
-        RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 1, "Error while checking Smack access");
+        RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == expected, "Error while checking Smack access");
     }
 
     //free resources
@@ -688,12 +687,17 @@ RUNNER_TEST(smack04_mixed_rule_string_have_access)
 
     int result;
     int i;
+    int expected;
 
     //rules were added in previous RUNNER_TEST section
     //checking accesses using mixed rules
     for (i = 0; i < (3 * 8); i += 3) {
+        if (!strcmp(rules_tab[i + 2], "-----"))
+            expected = 0;
+        else
+            expected = 1;
         result = smack_have_access(rules_tab[i], "book", rules_tab[i + 1]); //using mixed rules from table
-        RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == 1, "Error while checking Smack access");
+        RUNNER_ASSERT_MSG(result == expected, "Error while checking Smack access");
     }
 }