On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 12:17:42PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 6/6/2019 11:41 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:23:07PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > >> Maybe lsm_export_is_interesting()? > >> I'd love to discover there's a convention I could adhere to. > > I'd agree "lsm_data" seems meaningless. lsm_export does seem a better > > name, though it has the "export is also a verb" issue. Would "lsm_context" > > or "lsm_ctx"? > > be better? > > > > then we get lsm_ctx_is_interesting() and lsm_ctx_to_secid() ? > > Fiddling around with this led me to think "struct lsmdata" > would work, although maybe "struct lsmblob", in keeping with > the notion it is opaque. Leaving out the "_" helps with the > verb issue, I think. I think ctx or context is right out, as > secctx is the string representation, and it would really confuse > things. Ah yeah, good point on "context". Does "blob" conflict with the existing "blob" stuff? If it's always going to be u32 data, do we want it to be lsm_u32 ? Or, since it's a multiplexor, lsmmux ? -- Kees Cook
