[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0223b52e-50d6-ebce-840c-0364b24b1b30@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:44:51 -0800
From: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc: eric.snowberg@...cle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@...gle.com,
sashal@...nel.org, jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] IMA: Define workqueue for early boot "key"
measurements
On 12/16/2019 4:30 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> +
>> + if (!list_empty(&ima_keys)) {
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &ima_keys, list)
>> + list_move_tail(&entry->list, &temp_ima_keys);
>> + process = true;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&ima_keys_mutex);
>> +
>> + if (!process)
>> + return;
>
> The new changes - checking if the list is empty and this test - are
> unnecessary, as you implied earlier.
>
> Mimi
Do you want me to remove this check? I feel it is safer to have this
check - use a local flag "process" to return if no keys were moved to
the temp list. Would like to leave it as is - if you don't mind.
thanks,
-lakshmi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists