Re: [PATCH] securityfs

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:30:35PM -0500, serge@hallyn.com wrote:
> Quoting Greg KH (greg@kroah.com):
> > On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 05:08:35PM -0500, serue@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > > Quoting Greg KH (greg@kroah.com):
> > > > think it could be made even smaller if you use the default read and
> > > > write file type functions in libfs (look at the debugfs wrappers of them
> > > > for u8, u16, etc, for examples of how to use them.)
> > > 
> > > The attached patch cleans up the securelevel code for the seclvl file.
> > > Is this a reasonable way to go about this?
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > > Or is there a better way to do this?
> > 
> > Look at how debugfs uses the libfs code.  We should not need to add
> > these handlers to securityfs.
> 
> Unfortunately the simple_attr code from libfs really doesn't seem to be
> usable for int args.

Why not?  You want a negative number?  Just cast the u64 to a signed int
then.  Will that not work?  If not we can tweak the libfs interface to
work properly for you.

> However the below patch follows some of the
> examples in debugfs and comes out cleaner than my original patch.

That is nicer.  But I think you can get it smaller with the libfs stuff
:)

thanks,

greg k-h