[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1495035491.32535.6.camel@tycho.nsa.gov>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 11:38:11 -0400
From: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
To: Sebastien Buisson <sbuisson.ddn@...il.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
serge@...lyn.com, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Sebastien Buisson <sbuisson@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] selinux: add brief info to policydb
On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 16:59 +0200, Sebastien Buisson wrote:
> 2017-05-16 22:40 GMT+02:00 Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>:
> > > + strcpy(*brief, policydb.policybrief);
> > > + /* *len is the length of the output string */
> > > + *len = policybrief_len - 1;
> >
> > Is there a particular reason to not just return policybrief_len
> > here as
> > well, for consistency in the interface? How do you intend to use
> > this
> > value in the caller?
>
> As called in the other patch to expose policy brief via selinuxfs
> (sel_read_policybrief), the intent is to provide the caller with the
> length of the string returned.
> Or should I set *len to policy brief_len here, and just make the
> caller aware that the returned length is in fact the length of the
> buffer (i.e. including terminating NUL byte)?
Looking at the caller usage in the other patch, I guess it makes sense
in its current form.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists