[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/lsm_list_modules02: Log unrecognized LSM IDs with TINFO instead of TBROK

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Wake,

> When running lsm_list_modules02 on systems with newer upstream kernels
> containing newly introduced LSMs, or on vendor/OEM kernels with out-of-tree
> security modules enabled, lsm_list_modules(ids, size, 0) returns valid LSM
> IDs that might not yet be mapped in the hardcoded switch (ids[i]) table.

> Currently, encountering any unrecognized LSM ID causes the test to immediately
> terminate with tst_brk(TBROK, "Unsupported LSM: %lu", ids[i]). This prevents
> testing of other well-known standard LSMs present on the system.

> Downgrade the unrecognized LSM ID handling from TBROK to TINFO and continue
> iterating over the remaining IDs. This improves test robustness across
> various kernel configurations while maintaining rigorous verification for all
> known standard LSM modules.

Thanks!
Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>

> Signed-off-by: Wake Liu <wakel@google.com>
> ---
>  testcases/kernel/syscalls/lsm/lsm_list_modules02.c | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/lsm/lsm_list_modules02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/lsm/lsm_list_modules02.c
> index 91e5b7fa2..ede89ee73 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/lsm/lsm_list_modules02.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/lsm/lsm_list_modules02.c
> @@ -95,8 +95,11 @@ static void run(void)
>  			break;
>  		}

> -		if (!name)
> -			tst_brk(TBROK, "Unsupported LSM: %lu", ids[i]);
> +		if (!name) {
> +			tst_res(TINFO, "Skipping unrecognized LSM ID: %lu",
How about changing this to TCONF? It would be more obvious something was
skipped. This can be done before merge.

Kind regards,
Petr

> +				(unsigned long)ids[i]);
> +			continue;
> +		}

>  		for (counter = 0; counter < lsm_names_count; counter++) {
>  			if (!strcmp(name, lsm_names[counter].name)) {