Re: [PATCH v10 2/6] selftests/Landlock: general scoped restriction tests

"Re: [PATCH v10 2/6] selftests/Landlock: general scoped restriction"
This subject is still incorrect, please use this instead:
"selftests/landlock: Add common scope tests"

The same rule for the subject prefix should be followed for all other
commits (see my previous review).

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:08:52PM -0600, Tahera Fahimi wrote:
> The test function, "ruleset_with_unknown_scoped", is designed to
> validate the behaviour of the "landlock_create_ruleset" function
> when it is provided with an unsupported or unknown scoped mask.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tahera Fahimi <[email protected]>
> ---
>  .../testing/selftests/landlock/scoped_test.c  | 33 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/landlock/scoped_test.c
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/scoped_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/scoped_test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..aee853582451
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/scoped_test.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Landlock tests - Scope Restriction

Landlock tests - Common scope restrictions

> + *
> + * Copyright © 2024 Tahera Fahimi <[email protected]>
> + */
> +
> +#define _GNU_SOURCE
> +#include <errno.h>
> +#include <linux/landlock.h>
> +#include <sys/prctl.h>
> +
> +#include "common.h"
> +
> +#define ACCESS_LAST LANDLOCK_SCOPED_ABSTRACT_UNIX_SOCKET
> +
> +TEST(ruleset_with_unknown_scoped)

"ruleset_with_unknown_scope" makes more sense (also in the commit
message).

> +{
> +	__u64 scoped_mask;
> +
> +	for (scoped_mask = 1ULL << 63; scoped_mask != ACCESS_LAST;
> +	     scoped_mask >>= 1) {
> +		struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
> +			.scoped = scoped_mask,
> +		};
> +
> +		ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr,
> +						      sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0));
> +		ASSERT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);
> +	}
> +}

Good!

> +
> +TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
>