From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tomoyo: Swicth from cred->security to task_struct->security.
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:02:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <538ebe59-c25a-5eeb-e371-55fb8fd6fc39@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c1455a86-2444-9e60-23be-a98a77f87fa5@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
On 1/18/2019 9:17 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/01/19 2:01, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>> -/**
>>> - * tomoyo_real_domain - Get "struct tomoyo_domain_info" for specified thread.
>>> - *
>>> - * @task: Pointer to "struct task_struct".
>>> + * @task - Pointer to "struct task_struct".
>>> *
>>> * Returns pointer to "struct tomoyo_security" for specified thread.
>>> */
>>> -static inline struct tomoyo_domain_info *tomoyo_real_domain(struct task_struct
>>> - *task)
>>> +static inline struct tomoyo_security *tomoyo_security(struct task_struct *task)
>> Could you use tomoyo_task() instead of tomoyo_security()?
> Possible. But tomoyo_task() might be more confusing because it sounds like
> "struct task_struct" when it actually returns "struct task_struct"->security.
>
> Isn't tomoyo_task_security() better if I rename?
To my mind that just adds a _security suffix in a place where
we pretty well know you're doing something about security. I
used the <lsm>_<blob>() convention in part because it was usually
no longer than referencing the blob. smack_cred(cred) isn't
much longer than cred->security, whereas smack_cred_blob()
or smack_cred_security_blob() would be. I admit that I'm
looking at it from the viewpoint of someone who cares more about
how security modules are structured in general than I am in
how a specific module works.
In the end it's your code, but I hate to see divergence so
soon after I put a bit of order in place.
>> To the extent that it's been possible I've worked to add
>> consistency in the security modules, and this breaks it.
> Do you want me to rename
>
> /* Structure for "struct task_struct"->security. */
> struct tomoyo_security {
> struct tomoyo_domain_info *domain_info;
> struct tomoyo_domain_info *old_domain_info;
> };
>
> to "struct tomoyo_task" or "struct tomoyo_task_security" as well?
tomoyo_task would be my choice. Again, isn't appending _security
to things just adding keystrokes?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-18 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-18 10:18 [PATCH] tomoyo: Swicth from cred->security to task_struct->security Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-18 14:49 ` [PATCH v2] " Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-19 14:11 ` [PATCH v3] " Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-23 9:49 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-23 19:34 ` James Morris
2019-01-23 19:38 ` James Morris
2019-01-18 17:01 ` [PATCH] " Casey Schaufler
2019-01-18 17:17 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-18 18:02 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=538ebe59-c25a-5eeb-e371-55fb8fd6fc39@schaufler-ca.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox