linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] devcg: propagate local changes down the hierarchy

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: <20130219212015.GF11173@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:20:16 -0500
From:	Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...hat.com>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] devcg: propagate local changes down the hierarchy

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:12:08PM +0000, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Aristeu Rozanski (aris@...hat.com):
> > +		} else {
> > +			/*
> > +			 * in the other possible cases:
> > +			 * root's behavior: allow, devcg's: deny
> > +			 * root's behavior: deny, devcg's: deny
> > +			 * the exception will be removed
> > +			 */
> 
> Technically this case isn't needed, right?  Will the dev_exception_rm()
> also be done by revalidate_active_exceptions()?  So it's safe (but
> not necessary) to drop the else here.  Though the comment is very
> informative, and it might be worth keeping the code as is for clarity.

that's correct, it'll end up being removed by
revalidate_active_exceptions(). if others have no objection, I'll keep
it

Thanks for the reviews Serge, much appreciated

-- 
Aristeu

--
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/