Re: [PATCH] security/integrity: remove unnecessary 'init_keyring' variable

[Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 03:55:33PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-09-21 at 12:33 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 03:02:14PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-09-21 at 11:54 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:42:38PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 13:25 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The 'init_keyring' variable actually just gave the value of
> > > > > > CONFIG_INTEGRITY_TRUSTED_KEYRING.  We should check the config option
> > > > > > directly instead.  No change in behavior; this just simplifies the code.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We try to minimize as much as possible "ifdefs" in C code.  This
> > > > > change is moving in the wrong direction.
> > > > 
> > > > So your preferred approach is to store the values of Kconfig options in
> > > > variables?  That defeats much of the point of having Kconfig options...
> > > 
> > > No, I prefer using "ifdefs" in include files, not C code, and defining
> > > stub functions.
> > > 
> > > Mimi
> > > 
> > 
> > integrity_init_keyring() is already stubbed out in a header.  What are you
> > suggesting, exactly?
> 
> Refer to section "20) Conditional Compilation" of
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
> 
> Mimi
> 

I'm already familiar with that.  Unfortunately, you haven't clearly indicated
what alternative you prefer, and it's unclear whether you've even read my patch,
given that you're apparently saying to define a stub function which actually
already exists.  Maybe you want the 'init_keyring' bool replaced
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEGRITY_TRUSTED_KEYRING)?  That doesn't really make sense
though, because integrity_init_keyring() is already stubbed out in some
configurations; it makes more sense to fix the condition for stubbing it out...

- Eric