On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:16 AM, SF Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:23:41 +0200 > > The error code "-ENOMEM" was also returned so far when the parameter "s" > of this function contained a null pointer. > Now I find that the code "-EINVAL" is more appropriate in this case. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Have you tested this to determine any impact it may have on the SELinux userspace? I would agree that EINVAL is probably more appropriate in this case, but changing this return code has very little value and may disrupt userspace if it assumes EINVAL means something else when the policy load fails. Without a demonstration that all the code paths have been tested I'm not inclined to merge this patch. > diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c b/security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c > index c5f436b15d19..2eb2a54b88d2 100644 > --- a/security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c > +++ b/security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ int sidtab_insert(struct sidtab *s, u32 sid, struct context *context) > struct sidtab_node *prev, *cur, *newnode; > > if (!s) > - return -ENOMEM; > + return -EINVAL; > > hvalue = SIDTAB_HASH(sid); > prev = NULL; > -- > 2.12.2 -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- 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
