This test previously tested that applying `STRICT` after `FILTER` is impossible - update it to test that it is now possible.
Signed-off-by: Jamie Hill-Daniel <[email protected]> --- tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c index 874f17763536..ba042828dcbd 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ TEST(filter_chain_limits) } } -TEST(mode_filter_cannot_move_to_strict) +TEST(mode_filter_combined) { struct sock_filter filter[] = { BPF_STMT(BPF_RET|BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW), @@ -534,8 +534,7 @@ TEST(mode_filter_cannot_move_to_strict) ASSERT_EQ(0, ret); ret = prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT, NULL, 0, 0); - EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret); - EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno); + ASSERT_EQ(0, ret); } -- 2.53.0
