On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 04:42:26PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Fri, 2018-09-21 at 13:13 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 03:55:33PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-09-21 at 12:33 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 03:02:14PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2018-09-21 at 11:54 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:42:38PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 13:25 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'init_keyring' variable actually just gave the value of > > > > > > > > CONFIG_INTEGRITY_TRUSTED_KEYRING. We should check the config option > > > > > > > > directly instead. No change in behavior; this just simplifies the code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We try to minimize as much as possible "ifdefs" in C code. This > > > > > > > change is moving in the wrong direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > So your preferred approach is to store the values of Kconfig options in > > > > > > variables? That defeats much of the point of having Kconfig options... > > > > > > > > > > No, I prefer using "ifdefs" in include files, not C code, and defining > > > > > stub functions. > > > > > > > > > > Mimi > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrity_init_keyring() is already stubbed out in a header. What are you > > > > suggesting, exactly? > > > > > > Refer to section "20) Conditional Compilation" of > > > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst. > > > > > > Mimi > > > > > > > I'm already familiar with that. Unfortunately, you haven't clearly indicated > > what alternative you prefer, and it's unclear whether you've even read my patch, > > given that you're apparently saying to define a stub function which actually > > already exists. Maybe you want the 'init_keyring' bool replaced > > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEGRITY_TRUSTED_KEYRING)? That doesn't really make sense > > though, because integrity_init_keyring() is already stubbed out in some > > configurations; it makes more sense to fix the condition for stubbing it out... > > I read your patch and commented that "ifdefs" don't belong in .c > files, as the above referenced doc says. My comment on using ifdefs > for defining stubs was simply an example of how to get around using > ifdefs in C. > > The doc seems to be suggesting to use IS_ENABLED() to set a flag, > which is what the existing code does. Replacing the existing code > with IS_ENABLE() would be fine, but seems unnecessary. > > I don't see a need to change the existing code to add more ifdefs in > .c files. > There's no need to have a static variable that just holds the value of a build-time define. That's common sense. And no, the coding style doc doesn't say otherwise. Anyway, I'll send the version that just replaces it with IS_ENABLED() since that's still much better than the weird obfuscated thing it's doing now, though it's still a bit silly since the function is already stubbed out in some configurations... - Eric
