From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: serge@hallyn.com (Serge E. Hallyn) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:49:43 -0500 Subject: [PATCH V3 04/10] capabilities: use root_priveleged inline to clarify logic In-Reply-To: <20170828120307.GN24692@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <20170828120307.GN24692@madcap2.tricolour.ca> Message-ID: <20170831144943.GA12295@mail.hallyn.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org Quoting Richard Guy Briggs (rgb at redhat.com): > On 2017-08-25 15:58, James Morris wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > > Introduce inline root_privileged() to make use of SECURE_NONROOT > > > easier to read. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Serge Hallyn > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs > > > --- > > > security/commoncap.c | 9 +++++---- > > > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > Acked-by: James Morris > > Does anyone have the appetite to move this helper function to > include/linux/securebits.h along with issecure() to make it more widely > available? If it's going to have wider scope, then it probably needs to be renamed to be unambiguous in any context. root_implies_privilege or uid0_is_privileged maybe? Maybe root_privileged() is ok... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html