> > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c
> > > b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c
> > > index cd1683dad3bf..475ab368e32f 100644
> > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c
> > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c
> > > @@ -116,9 +116,13 @@ void ima_putc(struct seq_file *m, void *data, int
> > > datalen)
> > > seq_putc(m, *(char *)data++);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static struct dentry **ima_ascii_measurements_files;
> > > +static struct dentry **ima_binary_measurements_files;
> >
> > The variable naming isn't quite right. It's defined as a 'struct dentry',
> > but
> > the name is '*_files'. Why not just name the variables 'ima_{ascii, binary}
> > _measurements'?
>
> Hi Mimi,
Hi Enrico,
> thank you for pointing that out. What do you think of naming them 'ima_{ascii,
> binary}_securityfs_measurement_lists', to have also coherence with the names
> of
> the new functions defined.
As these are static variables, prefixing them with 'ima_' isn't necessary.
Either way is fine.
> > > +static void remove_measurements_list_files(struct dentry **files)
> >
> > And remove '_files' from the function name. Perhaps rename it
> > remove_measurement_lists or remove_securityfs_measurement_lists.
> >
> > > +{
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + if (files) {
> > > + for (i = 0; i < ima_measurements_files_count; i++)
> > > + securityfs_remove(files[i]);
> > > +
> > > + kfree(files);
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int create_measurements_list_files(void)
> >
> > And remove '_files' from the function name. Perhaps rename it to
> > create_measurement_lists or create_securityfs_measurement_lists.
>
> I think that keeping this structure for the names
> 'remove_securityfs_measurement_lists' and
> 'create_securityfs_measurement_lists'
> makes sense.
Agreed.
thanks,
Mimi
