On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 15:41 -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 10:28 +0800, Harry Ciao wrote:
> >> From: Harry Ciao<harrytaurus2002@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> If no class is specified in the role_transition rule, then it would
> >> be set to the "process" class by default.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Harry Ciao<qingtao.cao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> checkpolicy/policy_define.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >> checkpolicy/policy_define.h | 2 +-
> >> checkpolicy/policy_parse.y | 4 +-
> >> 3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/checkpolicy/policy_define.c b/checkpolicy/policy_define.c
> >> index 82ab44c..6c28d8a 100644
> >> --- a/checkpolicy/policy_define.c
> >> +++ b/checkpolicy/policy_define.c
> >> @@ -2050,17 +2050,18 @@ static int set_roles(role_set_t * set, char *id)
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -int define_role_trans(void)
> >> +int define_role_trans(int class_specified)
> >> {
> >> char *id;
> >> role_datum_t *role;
> >> role_set_t roles;
> >> type_set_t types;
> >> - ebitmap_t e_types, e_roles;
> >> - ebitmap_node_t *tnode, *rnode;
> >> + class_datum_t *cladatum;
> >> + ebitmap_t e_types, e_roles, classes;
> >
> > minor nit, most of this code uses e_* for ebitmaps. You don't need to
> > change that.....
> >
>
> There is only a single instance of e_* for ebitmaps in checkpolicy (which is
> what this patch is against)
Not in my tree that I was looking at, but then again, my tree adds stuff
which copied this code, so I guess you are right!
--
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.
