[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081003142342.GA9774@brain>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:23:42 +0100
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To: "David P. Quigley" <dpquigl@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc: hch@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
sds@...ho.nsa.gov, matthew.dodd@...rta.com,
trond.myklebust@....uio.no, bfields@...ldses.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
labeled-nfs@...ux-nfs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] NFS/RPC: Add the auth_seclabel security flavor
to allow the process label to be sent to the server.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 01:06:23PM -0400, David P. Quigley wrote:
[...]
>
> + if (dom->flavour != &svcauth_unix
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> + && dom->flavour != &svcauth_seclabel
> +#endif
> + )
> if (dom->flavour != &svcauth_unix)
> return -EINVAL;
> udom = container_of(dom, struct unix_domain, h);
> @@ -873,3 +889,80 @@ struct auth_ops svcauth_unix = {
> .set_client = svcauth_unix_set_client,
> };
checkpatch picked up on a suspect code indent for this hunk. It is
unhappy about the second if expecting it to be indented. By the looks
of this I am suspecting a miss-merge of the change in this function and
the second if should have been removed. To my reading it actually still
does the right thing but ...
-apw
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists