linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 2/7] keys: initialize root uid and session keyrings early

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+5PVA5dLY8rux88dC74q3uVwf3mE_VkGxaJU14YHbXkkGuBJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:59:02 -0400
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.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, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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?

If it makes a big ugly mess it's frowned upon.  But if you're adding 7
lines of code in a new file that will almost certainly never get more
code added to it, I'm not sure.  IMHO, it can go into an existing file.
Others might disagree.  Isn't Linux development fun?!

josh
--
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/