Re: [PATCH] smack: fix: allow either entry be missing on access/access2 check (v2)

2013-12-11 Thread Casey Schaufler
On 11/28/2013 9:16 AM, jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com wrote: > From: Jarkko Sakkinen > > This is a regression caused by f7112e6c. When either subject or > object is not found the answer for access should be no. This > patch fixes the situation. '0' is written back instead of failing > with

Re: [PATCH] smack: fix: allow either entry be missing on access/access2 check (v2)

2013-12-11 Thread Casey Schaufler
On 11/28/2013 9:16 AM, jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com wrote: From: Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com This is a regression caused by f7112e6c. When either subject or object is not found the answer for access should be no. This patch fixes the situation. '0' is written back

[PATCH] smack: fix: allow either entry be missing on access/access2 check (v2)

2013-11-28 Thread jarkko . sakkinen
From: Jarkko Sakkinen This is a regression caused by f7112e6c. When either subject or object is not found the answer for access should be no. This patch fixes the situation. '0' is written back instead of failing with -EINVAL. v2: cosmetic style fixes Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen ---

[PATCH] smack: fix: allow either entry be missing on access/access2 check (v2)

2013-11-28 Thread jarkko . sakkinen
From: Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com This is a regression caused by f7112e6c. When either subject or object is not found the answer for access should be no. This patch fixes the situation. '0' is written back instead of failing with -EINVAL. v2: cosmetic style fixes