Quoting CAI Qian (caiq...@cclom.cn): > --- On Wed, 1/28/09, CAI Qian <caiq...@cclom.cn> wrote: > Here is the link for the email from Stephen Smalley that I was refer > to, > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ltp/7324
The patch you sent doesn't do what he suggests though. He is saying to ignore the case where the files return data, warn and then ignore the case where it returns -EINVAL, and return a fatal error if another error is returned. Notice that should involve no checks for whether selinux is enabled, of which your patch had many. The only potential problem with Stephen's suggestion that I see would be that an LSM may return -EPERM or some other error as part of its implementation. Not sure if that would become a problem in practice or not. So I would still suggest ignoring these files in proc01.c altogether, and starting with a simple test under testcases/kernel/security. If that test becomes more baroque over time to reflect smack/tomoyo/etc implementation details, then at least it's in the right place. But I objected to your last patch because of all of the selinux-specific code in what should be a simple procfs functionality test. If you implement precisely what Stephen suggested then I'll certainly ack it. thanks, -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
