[RFC PATCH] selinux: TESTING ONLY, PLEASE IGNORE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



This patch can be safely ignored, I'm testing some new automated
tooling and needed to do an on-list test.  My apologies for the
noise.

Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 security/selinux/netlabel.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/selinux/netlabel.c b/security/selinux/netlabel.c
index 767c670d33ea..575e7597c3aa 100644
--- a/security/selinux/netlabel.c
+++ b/security/selinux/netlabel.c
@@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ static struct netlbl_lsm_secattr *selinux_netlbl_sock_genattr(struct sock *sk)
  *
  */
 static struct netlbl_lsm_secattr *selinux_netlbl_sock_getattr(
-							const struct sock *sk,
-							u32 sid)
+	const struct sock *sk,
+	u32 sid)
 {
 	struct sk_security_struct *sksec = sk->sk_security;
 	struct netlbl_lsm_secattr *secattr = sksec->nlbl_secattr;
@@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ int selinux_netlbl_skbuff_setsid(struct sk_buff *skb,
  *
  */
 int selinux_netlbl_sctp_assoc_request(struct sctp_association *asoc,
-				     struct sk_buff *skb)
+				      struct sk_buff *skb)
 {
 	int rc;
 	struct netlbl_lsm_secattr secattr;
@@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ int selinux_netlbl_sock_rcv_skb(struct sk_security_struct *sksec,
 static inline int selinux_netlbl_option(int level, int optname)
 {
 	return (level == IPPROTO_IP && optname == IP_OPTIONS) ||
-		(level == IPPROTO_IPV6 && optname == IPV6_HOPOPTS);
+	       (level == IPPROTO_IPV6 && optname == IPV6_HOPOPTS);
 }
 
 /**
-- 
2.40.1




[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux