On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:58 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Since it is fixed-size after allocation and we know the size beforehand,
> using a plain old array is simpler and more efficient.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> security/selinux/ss/conditional.c | 125 ++++++++++++------------------
> security/selinux/ss/conditional.h | 8 +-
> 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
...
> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/conditional.c b/security/selinux/ss/conditional.c
> index c8a02c9b23ee..b847fd2a6a51 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/ss/conditional.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/conditional.c
> @@ -255,19 +249,17 @@ err:
>
> struct cond_insertf_data {
> struct policydb *p;
> + struct avtab_node **dst;
> struct cond_av_list *other;
> - struct cond_av_list *head;
> - struct cond_av_list *tail;
> };
>
> static int cond_insertf(struct avtab *a, struct avtab_key *k, struct avtab_datum *d, void *ptr)
> {
> struct cond_insertf_data *data = ptr;
> struct policydb *p = data->p;
> - struct cond_av_list *other = data->other, *list, *cur;
> struct avtab_node *node_ptr;
> - u8 found;
> - int rc = -EINVAL;
> + u32 i;
> + bool found;
>
> /*
> * For type rules we have to make certain there aren't any
> @@ -277,7 +269,7 @@ static int cond_insertf(struct avtab *a, struct avtab_key *k, struct avtab_datum
> if (k->specified & AVTAB_TYPE) {
> if (avtab_search(&p->te_avtab, k)) {
> pr_err("SELinux: type rule already exists outside of a conditional.\n");
> - goto err;
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
> /*
> * If we are reading the false list other will be a pointer to
> @@ -287,29 +279,29 @@ static int cond_insertf(struct avtab *a, struct avtab_key *k, struct avtab_datum
> * If we are reading the true list (other == NULL) there shouldn't
> * be any other entries.
> */
> - if (other) {
> + if (data->other) {
> node_ptr = avtab_search_node(&p->te_cond_avtab, k);
> if (node_ptr) {
> if (avtab_search_node_next(node_ptr, k->specified)) {
> pr_err("SELinux: too many conflicting type rules.\n");
> - goto err;
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
> - found = 0;
> - for (cur = other; cur; cur = cur->next) {
> - if (cur->node == node_ptr) {
> - found = 1;
> + found = false;
> + for (i = 0; i < data->other->len; i++) {
> + if (data->other->nodes[i] == node_ptr) {
> + found = true;
> break;
> }
> }
Can you explain why you got rid of the "other" variable in this
function? It seems like it would be nice in the loop above.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
