On 09/16/2016 10:44 AM, William Roberts wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:41 AM, William Roberts > <bill.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 09/16/2016 10:30 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>>> On 09/15/2016 07:13 PM, william.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>> From: William Roberts <william.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> patch 5e15a52aaa cleans up the process_file() but introduced >>>>> a bug. If the binary file cannot be opened, always attempt >>>>> to fall back to the textual file, this was not occurring. >>>>> >>>>> The logic should be: >>>>> 1. Open the newest file based on base path + suffix vs >>>>> base_path + suffix + ".bin". >>>>> 2. If anything fails, attempt base_path + suffix. >>>>> >>>>> In the case that the file_contexts was the newest file and >>>>> used for processing fails, it will attempt the same failure >>>>> recovery, which will fail. It was decided to keep it this >>>>> was for simplicity. >>>> >>>> I don't like the approach. What we want is: >>>> - if .bin file exists and is not older, try to load it, >>>> - if any of the above fails (i.e. .bin file does not exist, is older, or >>>> cannot be loaded for any reason), then load the text file. >>>> >>>> We shouldn't try loading the text file twice. >>>> >>>> Also, attached is checkpatch output for your patch. Please fix. >>> >>> Also, there is a further wrinkle: Android passes in file_contexts.bin as >>> the SELABEL_OPT_PATH, so that is the base path. Under the old logic >>> (before your original clean up patch), we would open that file, detect >>> that it is binary, and then load it. Under the current logic, we'll >>> open file_contexts.bin, then try to open file_contexts.bin.bin (which >>> will fail), and then use the first one. >> >> Not true, I don't try to open it, I try to stat it. > > My code never assumes file suffix == type > >> >>> >>> Wondering if we just need to revert. >> >> If you want to revert I have no problem with that, but I provided IMO >> a valid fix. >> Since I won't likely have a next version patch out till after you go >> home today, I >> would support reverting. Unfortunately it is now entangled with Janis' patch. Let's do this: fix the coding style issues I sent to you from checkpatch, and we'll take this one. Then we'll look to avoid the extraneous load in a subsequent patch. _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
