From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jike Song Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] capability: export has_capability Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:56:25 +0800 Message-ID: <5876D439.3090102@intel.com> References: <1482336616-19252-1-git-send-email-jike.song@intel.com> <1482336616-19252-2-git-send-email-jike.song@intel.com> <20170111134701.7d153d34@t450s.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: serge@hallyn.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kwankhede@nvidia.com, kraxel@redhat.com To: Alex Williamson Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170111134701.7d153d34@t450s.home> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 01/12/2017 02:47 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 00:10:15 +0800 > Jike Song wrote: > >> has_capability() is sometimes needed by modules to test capability >> for specified task other than current, so export it. >> >> Cc: Alex Williamson >> Cc: Kirti Wankhede >> Signed-off-by: Jike Song >> --- >> kernel/capability.c | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/capability.c b/kernel/capability.c >> index 4984e1f..e2e198c 100644 >> --- a/kernel/capability.c >> +++ b/kernel/capability.c >> @@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ bool has_capability(struct task_struct *t, int cap) >> { >> return has_ns_capability(t, &init_user_ns, cap); >> } >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(has_capability); >> >> /** >> * has_ns_capability_noaudit - Does a task have a capability (unaudited) > > Are we using EXPORT_SYMBOL vs EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL here to match the other > exports in this file? We could use _GPL to match the expected caller > of this. > Yes, I chose EXPORT_SYMBOL to match the existing exports in capability.c. Either is good to me, of course :) > > Serge, > > Do you have any comments on this patch? I'd be happy to pull it > through the vfio tree with an appropriate Ack. Thanks, Guess Serge still on Xmas vocation? :) -- Thanks, Jike