[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aR0IXXF45jzoq1ZZ@mail.hallyn.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 17:59:25 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Ryan Foster <foster.ryan.r@...il.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clarify the rootid_owns_currentns
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 10:47:06AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 9:16 AM Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 03:33:19PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Split most of the rootid_owns_currentns() functionality
> > > into a more generic rootid_owns_ns() function which
> > > will be easier to write tests for.
> > >
> > > Rename the functions and variables to make clear that
> > > the ids being tested could be any uid.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
> > > CC: Ryan Foster <foster.ryan.r@...il.com>
> > > CC: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
> >
> > Paul, Christian, let me know if you have any objections, else I will
> > queue this up in caps-next.
>
> Seems reasonable to me, but it would be good to fix the parameter doc
> bug that the kernel test robot identified. I suspect it is just the
> extra vertical comment space between the top one line summary and the
> parameter list.
ooh, is that it. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what it
was complaining about. Will try that, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists