# Re: \[PATCH v13 11/11\] LSM: selftests for Linux Security Module syscalls

- From: Mickaël Salaün \<mic@digikod.net\>
- Date: 2023-08-25 18:59:52 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2023/08/2315460
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-security-module/2023/08/2289254/t.md

```text
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 11:14:15AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 8:01 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > These tests look good!
> >
> > I suggested other tests to add in my previous emails.
> 
> Some of the tests you've suggested will be very difficult to implement
> in the face of varying LSM configurations. I need to defer them until a
> later date.

Sure, some might be difficult, but some bound checks (e.g. extra flags)
should be doable.

> 
> > I'd suggest to re-run clang-format -i on them though.
> 
> I assume you're recommending a set of options to clang-format
> beyond just "-i". The result of clang-format -i by itself is
> horrific. 

I just ran clang -i (with the default kernel configuration, which is
taken into account by default). This just add four changes: the PROCATTR
define and three ASSERT*() calls, which are not too uggly IMO.
```