add test for security_path_rmdir

[achrefbensaad]

Signed-off-by: Achref ben saad achref@accuknox.com

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #938 (290188e) into main (742834c) will decrease coverage by 0.46%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #938      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   39.45%   38.99%   -0.47%     
==========================================
  Files          31       31              
  Lines        9838     9838              
==========================================
- Hits         3882     3836      -46     
- Misses       5450     5492      +42     
- Partials      506      510       +4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
KubeArmor/core/containerdHandler.go	57.67% <0.00%> (-11.24%)	⬇️
KubeArmor/monitor/logUpdate.go	66.85% <0.00%> (-2.79%)	⬇️
KubeArmor/core/dockerHandler.go	44.78% <0.00%> (-2.70%)	⬇️
KubeArmor/monitor/processTree.go	94.62% <0.00%> (-1.08%)	⬇️
KubeArmor/feeder/policyMatcher.go	41.95% <0.00%> (+0.34%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[daemon1024]

if ! $SUDO ./syscheck $1 ; then
    echo "Disabling $SYSCALL ..."
    echo "$SYSCALL" >> ignore.lst
else
    echo "Enabling syscall $SYSCALL"
    grep "// CFlag=.*$" "$1.c" | sed -E "s/.*?=(.*?)$/\1/" >> cflags.lst
fi

I believe this is the relevant code.
I think We shouldn't have tests like this, like needing to check and every syscall to ignore.lst.
Any bpf program is dependent on a certain kernel features.

Adding a test for each one won't make sense. As we proceed we might need to add 10 more hooks that are related to SECURITY_PATH flag. But in that case we would need to add 10 more test cases here right?

Ignore list check should be based on flags rather than tests for each syscall. WDYT?

[achrefbensaad]

@daemon1024 , I agree. Changes has been made.