From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1EE251D524; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 12:32:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792067537; cv=none; b=P8gsNLy0yUxJjGztMjkhIzgAUmsrDbTP6IH1mkAzWgTtW+sdjNZcBRSAsIdndCoCXmfgIomQs0dIWsqlnB92NRW1rEt/C5IltwfKBJceZ7+TgjjGa6OcWNlFXPNbN1oIOUGvZHnXfo9+W6ZUl5A+0eqHGdb5wBvic6X2EDxG5Ak= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792067537; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ekVfnPOTd9BZQyxWMnTmwpLgVk997cebPo2RZggR1O0=; h=Message-ID:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date; b=OAhiCbnq01DmE/CQYPdPdJwNKjPZGHWawx8VZfNFAX+kTajBp6IjxFBlFLi/Rq3szMd/2mww1e2NZYRMVOd2rLUkdT4fiXVD8QNUamHdMlbiOuQ+34OFhiPDU8aZeDqHi3ED5fkjx4xIYxG2k5ruKaxiss4KnlrVZnGfGFWCHqY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mqH10T9h; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mqH10T9h" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91D551F000C4; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 12:32:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792067535; bh=xH5V+RjPMX2OoaIL0TYiuAC+eMv3PKbAFyVDC1jlDGw=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=mqH10T9hE3VBRyaUZ4z53EQViUSv8EZt3+HDL/iv30t3HscSg/NmPvGiNduKO9NKd AzfkHl7rw4/Q5eH5CkPmMgUZ30cha5Xzrhkk6fjkHg0akfNamC1dD9djEHdwQsFBDJ TeNRfhvpRvrgiIKIyJyKVSRhTBvJg6qGFwLy5V5mt+3KFBGdc5HmZJfSL/EJVASXSQ r4XZaln2EgNwWC6r3/ps8GhgP159LgJt5t0cpjSf7xMgpqdx7hA2mkneA5/uaPpHVA rFx2AI//YJmkxe0OB5fyRWx3Z9glkuewvGIfajSiLx/QBHmBZFphljRnwD5pz8V4Bs 8O09YIqi4F8/A== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -next 10/18] LSM: rename inode_getattr to path_getattr Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Cai Xinchen" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, "Chuck Lever" , "Jeff Layton" , "Anna Schumaker" In-Reply-To: <20261015125425.3246251-11-caixinchen1@huawei.com> References: <20261015125425.3246251-1-caixinchen1@huawei.com> <20261015125425.3246251-11-caixinchen1@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 12:32:15 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] selftests/bpf: use of deprecated CHECK() macro in updated test code -- commit c4d97789c19b5bd634c796fba77ad30dd5acd56f Author: Cai Xinchen LSM: rename inode_getattr to path_getattr This commit renames the inode_getattr hook to path_getattr to follow the path_* naming convention used for other hooks taking a struct path. It also updates the security_* wrappers and adjusts BPF selftests to use the new names. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/d_path.c b/tools/test= ing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/d_path.c > index 1a2a2f1abf033..9877c098e5c14 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/d_path.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/d_path.c > @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ static void test_d_path_basic(void) > =20 > if (CHECK(!bss->called_stat, > "stat", > - "trampoline for security_inode_getattr was not called\n")) > + "trampoline for security_path_getattr was not called\n")) [Severity: Low] The BPF subsystem guidelines prefer replacing the deprecated CHECK macros w= ith modern ASSERT_* macros (such as ASSERT_TRUE or ASSERT_EQ) when writing new tests or updating existing ones. Since this patch updates the string literal inside the CHECK macro call in test_d_path_basic(), could this be migrated to the modern assertion standar= d? > goto cleanup; > =20 > if (CHECK(!bss->called_close, --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261015125425.3246= 251-1-caixinchen1@huawei.com?part=3D10