On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Vikram Dhillon <dhillonv10@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on 03/06/2010 04:30:33 PM: > >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > It seems like we should return an error here. That's what the comment >> > says we should do. >> > >> > I also removed an out of date comment. It wasn't needed and seemed >> > likely >> > to get out of date again. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> >> > --- > > The current code and comment are correct, as the return code will reflect > the file's integrity appraisal, which hasn't yet been implemented. > > Mimi Oh right :) I guess we aren't at a point yet to enforce integrity, so what should the return code return? Based on the comment the code seemed okay but I think we may have to base it on measurement appraisal in LIM (then again, not too sure if this is the right approach). -- Regards, Vikram Dhillon ~~~ There are lots of Linux users who don't care how the kernel works, but only want to use it. That is a tribute to how good Linux is. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
