[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1345146349.3402.21.camel@falcor.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:45:49 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
Cc: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>, jmorris@...ei.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, dhowells@...hat.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/7] keys: initialize root uid and session keyrings
early
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:13 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > +#include "internal.h"
> >> > +static int __init init_root_keyring(void)
> >> > +{
> >> > + return install_user_keyrings();
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +late_initcall(init_root_keyring);
> >> > --
> >>
> >> Why is this in an entirely new file instead of just being added to
> >> process_keys.c ?
> >>
> >> josh
> >
> > Only when "CONFIG_INTEGRITY_SIGNATURE" is selected, does this get built.
>
> Yes, I noticed that. It doesn't explain why it's in its own file. You
> could accomplish the same thing by wrapping the function and initcall
> in #ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY_SIGNATURE in process_keys.c.
I was under the impression using 'ifdefs' in 'C' code was frowned upon
(Documentation/SubmittingPatches section 2.2). This would be an
exception?
Mimi
--
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