On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Stephen Smalley <s...@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> On 09/16/2016 10:44 AM, William Roberts wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:41 AM, William Roberts
>> <bill.c.robe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Stephen Smalley <s...@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
>>>> On 09/16/2016 10:30 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>>> On 09/15/2016 07:13 PM, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote:
>>>>>> From: William Roberts <william.c.robe...@intel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> patch 5e15a52aaa cleans up the process_file() but introduced
>>>>>> a bug. If the binary file cannot be opened, always attempt
>>>>>> to fall back to the textual file, this was not occurring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The logic should be:
>>>>>> 1. Open the newest file based on base path + suffix vs
>>>>>>    base_path + suffix + ".bin".
>>>>>> 2. If anything fails, attempt base_path + suffix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case that the file_contexts was the newest file and
>>>>>> used for processing fails, it will attempt the same failure
>>>>>> recovery, which will fail. It was decided to keep it this
>>>>>> was for simplicity.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like the approach.  What we want is:
>>>>> - if .bin file exists and is not older, try to load it,
>>>>> - if any of the above fails (i.e. .bin file does not exist, is older, or
>>>>> cannot be loaded for any reason), then load the text file.
>>>>>
>>>>> We shouldn't try loading the text file twice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, attached is checkpatch output for your patch.  Please fix.
>>>>
>>>> Also, there is a further wrinkle: Android passes in file_contexts.bin as
>>>> the SELABEL_OPT_PATH, so that is the base path.  Under the old logic
>>>> (before your original clean up patch), we would open that file, detect
>>>> that it is binary, and then load it.  Under the current logic, we'll
>>>> open file_contexts.bin, then try to open file_contexts.bin.bin (which
>>>> will fail), and then use the first one.
>>>
>>> Not true, I don't try to open it, I try to stat it.
>>
>> My code never assumes file suffix == type
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wondering if we just need to revert.
>>>
>>> If you want to revert I have no problem with that, but I provided IMO
>>> a valid fix.
>>> Since I won't likely have a next version patch out till after you go
>>> home today, I
>>> would support reverting.
>
> Unfortunately it is now entangled with Janis' patch.  Let's do this: fix
> the coding style issues I sent to you from checkpatch, and we'll take
> this one.  Then we'll look to avoid the extraneous load in a subsequent
> patch.

Fine by me, i'm running to an appointment, I wont have that patch out to
probably 3-4pm your time.

-- 
Respectfully,

William C Roberts
_______________________________________________
Seandroid-list mailing list
Seandroid-list@tycho.nsa.gov
To unsubscribe, send email to seandroid-list-le...@tycho.nsa.gov.
To get help, send an email containing "help" to 
seandroid-list-requ...@tycho.nsa.gov.

Reply via email to