On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 10:05 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:11 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Correct a problem where we weren't setting the peer label correctly on
> > the client end of a pair of connected UNIX sockets.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: XXX
> > ---
> > security/selinux/hooks.c | 28 ++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > index f9545c8..09973e2 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > @@ -4039,34 +4039,30 @@ static int selinux_socket_unix_stream_connect(struct socket *sock,
> > struct socket *other,
> > struct sock *newsk)
> > {
> > - struct sk_security_struct *ssec;
> > - struct inode_security_struct *isec;
> > - struct inode_security_struct *other_isec;
> > + struct sk_security_struct *sksec_s = sock->sk->sk_security;
> > + struct sk_security_struct *sksec_o = other->sk->sk_security;
> > + struct sk_security_struct *sksec_n = newsk->sk_security;
>
> Don't you find the code using these names (sksec_[son]) to be rather
> difficult to read compared to the old code?
He is probably doing this because I just converted everything that was
an sk_security_struck to sksec for easy grepping in a recent patch. I'd
be in favor of more than _s _o and _n suffix's though....
-Eric
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
