[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6ce2ce60b2435940bc8dfa07fa2553c4524d2db5.camel@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:18:46 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Aaron Goidel <acgoide@...ho.nsa.gov>, paul@...l-moore.com
Cc: selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz,
amir73il@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fanotify, inotify, dnotify, security: add security
hook for fs notifications
On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 09:49 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 7/10/19 9:38 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > On 7/10/2019 6:34 AM, Aaron Goidel wrote:
> > > @@ -3261,6 +3262,26 @@ static int selinux_inode_removexattr(struct dentry *dentry, const char *name)
> > > return -EACCES;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int selinux_inode_notify(struct inode *inode, u64 mask)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 perm = FILE__WATCH; // basic permission, can a watch be set?
> >
> > We don't use // comments in the Linux kernel.
> >
>
> I thought that we had recently moved into the 21st century on that issue,
> but I don't see it mentioned in coding-style.rst. Maybe we need a Doc update.
>
> checkpatch allows C99 comments by default.
> Joe, do you recall about this?
My recollection is it was something I thought was
just simple and useful so I added it to checkpatch
without going through the negative of the nominal
approvals required by modifying CodingStyle.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists