Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add is_kernel parameter to LSM/bpf test programs

[Paul Moore]

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