[PATCH] selftests: lsm: Refactor `flags_overset_lsm_set_self_attr` test

[Shuah Khan]

On 11/14/24 09:55, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> 
> On 11/14/2024 8:25 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 11/12/24 11:28, Amit Vadhavana wrote:
>>> - Remove unnecessary `tctx` variable, use `ctx` directly.
>>> - Simplified code with no functional changes.
>>>
>>
>> I would rephrase the short to simply say Remove unused variable,
>> as refactor implies more extensive changes than what this patch
>> is actually doing.
>>
>> Please write complete sentences instead of bullet points in the
>> change log.
>>
>> How did you find this problem? Do include the details on how
>> in the change log.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Amit Vadhavana <av2082000 at gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c | 7 +++----
>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
>>> index 66dec47e3ca3..732e89fe99c0 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c
>>> @@ -56,16 +56,15 @@ TEST(flags_zero_lsm_set_self_attr)
>>>    TEST(flags_overset_lsm_set_self_attr)
>>>    {
>>>        const long page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
>>> -    char *ctx = calloc(page_size, 1);
>>> +    struct lsm_ctx *ctx = calloc(page_size, 1);
>>
>> Why not name this tctx and avoid changes to the ASSERT_EQs
>> below?
> 
> In the realm of linux security modules ctx is short for "context".
> I used tctx here because I was lazy. It would be much better to
> drop tctx, even if it means a tiny bit more change.
> 

Makes sense.

Amit, you can ignore this comment about tctx and ctx. Please do fix
others about the change log and short log.

thanks,
-- Shuah