On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 16:10 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: >> We should have a little more naming consistentcy between >> current_has_system() and self_has_perm(). Something like >> current_has_process/current_has_system, >> self_has_process/self_has_system, or something else along the lines >> ... I think you get the idea. > > Not sure how to improve upon it in a manner that is concise and clear. > At present, the patch splits the old task_has_perm() into > task_has_perm_to_current() vs self_has_perm() and renames > task_has_system() to current_has_system(). If I rename self_has_perm() > to current_has_process(), then it seems confusingly similar and > inconsistent with the existing current_has_perm(), which is unchanged > by this patch. If I instead rename current_has_system() to > self_has_system(), then that also seems confusing/inconsistent; > self_has_perm() indicates it is a current-self check, whereas > current_has_system() is a current-kernel:system check. I could do that > but not sure it is an improvement. > > The other option would be to inline them all since they are all quite > trivial now. Perhaps this last option is best, as you point out, these are all basically just one-liner wrappers at this point and offer little standalone value. -- paul moore security @ redhat _______________________________________________ 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.
