> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 11:14 PM > > On 1/10/20 4:58 AM, Huaisheng Ye wrote: > > From: Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > selinux_msg_msg_alloc_security only calls msg_msg_alloc_security but > > do nothing else. And also msg_msg_alloc_security is just used by the > > former. > > > > Remove the redundant function to simplify the code. > > This seems to also be true of other _alloc_security functions, probably due to > historical reasons. Further, at least some of these functions no longer perform > any allocation; they are just initialization functions now that allocation has > been taken to the LSM framework, so possibly could be renamed and made to return > void at some point. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Huaisheng Ye <yehs1@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Many thanks for the Acked-by. Yes, you are right, selinux_msg_msg_alloc_security only can return 0 in any case. I think that should be modified to void instead of int. And also, the fact is no module needs to implement msg_msg_free_security, because LSM would take the responsibility for freeing msg->security. I think we could delete the hook call of msg_msg_free_security, but I am cautious to modify the existing interfaces, that just worry to break traditional rules. Cheers, Huaisheng Ye Lenovo
