On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 3:31 PM Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The security_bpf LSM hook now contains a boolean parameter specifying > whether an invocation of the bpf syscall originated from within the > kernel. Here, we update the function signature of relevant test > programs to include that new parameter. > > Signed-off-by: Blaise Boscaccy bboscaccy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rcu_read_lock.c | 3 ++- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cgroup1_hierarchy.c | 4 ++-- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_kfunc_dynptr_param.c | 6 +++--- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_lookup_key.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ptr_untrusted.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_task_under_cgroup.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c | 2 +- > 7 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) I see that Song requested that the changes in this patch be split out back in the v3 revision, will that cause git bisect issues if patch 1/2 is applied but patch 2/2 is not, or is there some BPF magic that ensures that the selftests will still run properly? -- paul-moore.com
