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 <jamie@hill-daniel.co.uk>
---
 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