> Have you tested this to determine any impact it may have on the > SELinux userspace? Not yet. > I would agree that EINVAL is probably more appropriate in this case, Thanks that a part of your view seems to fit also to mine. > but changing this return code has very little value I would appreciate if this aspect can clarified a bit more. > and may disrupt userspace if it assumes EINVAL means something else > when the policy load fails. Would you find an other error code better there? Do you care to distinguish an input validation failure in a specific function implementation from other error situations? Regards, Markus -- 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
