From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4] kernel: selinux: policy selectable handling of unknown classes and perms From: Eric Paris To: James Morris Cc: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, ewalsh@tycho.nsa.gov, sgrubb@redhat.com In-Reply-To: References: <1190399830.3451.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:02:41 -0400 Message-Id: <1190588561.3451.165.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 14:39 -0700, James Morris wrote: > > + > > + unsigned int reject_unknown : 1; > > + unsigned int allow_unknown : 1; > > + u32 *undefined_perms; > > Why two separate bitfields ? You mean why did we split from a single "handle_unknown" to using 2 separate bits? See the message from Eamon http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=119033791127455&w=2 > > +int security_get_reject_unknown(void) > > +int security_get_allow_unknown(void) > > Can you make these static inline? These are used in selinuxfs.c and aren't we trying to let the compiler make inline choices these days? > > > What sort of testing has this had? The patch (minus the bit field split) testing is explained in http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=118969604021576&w=2 After the bit field split I merely tested missing classes, I did not retest all the scenarios described in the above message (namely i didn't test missing perms alone), but the meat of the patch has not changed since version 2. -Eric -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.