On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 20:58 +1100, James Morris wrote:On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, David P. Quigley wrote:
+ * @inode_getsecctx:For inode_getsecctx(), you're returning the length via the return value, so you should not also need to pass in a pointer to ctxlen, right?
+ * Returns a string containing all relavent security context information
+ *
+ * @inode we wish to set the security context of.
+ * @ctx is a pointer in which to place the allocated security context.
+ * @ctxlen points to the place to put the length of @ctx.
* This is the main security structure.
*/
struct security_operations {
@@ -1479,6 +1514,10 @@ struct security_operations {
int (*secctx_to_secid) (const char *secdata, u32 seclen, u32 *secid);
void (*release_secctx) (char *secdata, u32 seclen);
+ int (*inode_notifysecctx)(struct inode *inode, void *ctx, u32 ctxlen);
+ int (*inode_setsecctx)(struct dentry *dentry, void *ctx, u32 ctxlen);
+ int (*inode_getsecctx)(struct inode *inode, void **ctx, u32 *ctxlen);
IMHO, it's clearer and simpler to always only return error status from these kinds of functions, and to pass things like size back via pointer args, although it seems that a few mixed return functions have crept in to the code over time. My preference would be to convert it to return value is error status only, with the length entirely separate as a pointer arg.
- James
I'll have to look into why we did it this way. The discussion for these
patches happened many months ago so I don't remember why it was done
this way. I remember at the time getting an approval for the approach
but a desire not to merge the patch while there were no users of it.