On Tuesday 04 May 2010 10:30:05 am Eric Paris wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Paul Moore <paul.moore@xxxxxx> wrote: > > At present, the socket related access controls use a mix of inode and > > socket labels; while there should be no practical difference (they > > _should_ always be the same), it makes the code more confusing. This > > patch attempts to convert all of the socket related access control > > points (with the exception of some of the inode/fd based controls) to > > use the socket's own label. In the process, I also converted the > > socket_has_perm() function to take a 'sock' argument instead of a > > 'socket' since that was adding a bit more overhead in some cases. > > Should it be renamed to sock_has_perm() then? BTW, thanks for the review too ... Yeah, I can change the name, in fact, I'll do that right now ... -- 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.
