On Tuesday 04 May 2010 09:52:25 am Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:11 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Consolidate the basic sockcreate_sid logic into a single helper function
> > which allows us to do some cleanups in the related code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: XXX
> > ---
> >
> > security/selinux/hooks.c | 32 ++++++++++++--------------------
> > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > index 09973e2..4034a3a 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > @@ -3730,6 +3730,12 @@ static int selinux_skb_peerlbl_sid(struct sk_buff
> > *skb, u16 family, u32 *sid)
> >
> > }
> >
> > /* socket security operations */
> >
> > +
> > +static u32 socket_sockcreate_sid(const struct task_security_struct
> > *tsec) +{
> > + return tsec->sockcreate_sid ? tsec->sockcreate_sid : tsec->sid;
>
> Why is this clearer than just:
> return tsec->sockcreate_sid ?: tsec->sid;
It is more explicit?
Honestly, it is just a personal preference thing; if you want it the other way
just say so and I'll change it back. The value to me is in the
socket_has_perm() and _post_create() cleanup ...
--
paul moore
linux @ hp
--
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.
