Re: [PATCH V3 3/5 selinux-next] selinux: sidtab_clone switch to use rwlock.

+int sidtab_clone(struct sidtab *s, struct sidtab *d) +{ + int i, rc = 0; If s or d are NULL (see if() below), why would we want rc, the return value, to be 0?  How about defaulting rc to an error value (-EINVAL)? + struct sidtab_node *cur; + + if (!s || !d) +

Re: [PATCH V3 3/5 selinux-next] selinux: sidtab_clone switch to use rwlock.

+int sidtab_clone(struct sidtab *s, struct sidtab *d) +{ + int i, rc = 0; If s or d are NULL (see if() below), why would we want rc, the return value, to be 0?  How about defaulting rc to an error value (-EINVAL)? + struct sidtab_node *cur; + + if (!s || !d) +

[PATCH V3 3/5 selinux-next] selinux: sidtab_clone switch to use rwlock.

We need a copy of sidtabs, so change the generic sidtab_clone as from a function pointer and let it use a read rwlock while do the clone. Signed-off-by: Peter Enderborg --- security/selinux/ss/services.c | 20 +--- security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c | 39

[PATCH V3 3/5 selinux-next] selinux: sidtab_clone switch to use rwlock.

We need a copy of sidtabs, so change the generic sidtab_clone as from a function pointer and let it use a read rwlock while do the clone. Signed-off-by: Peter Enderborg --- security/selinux/ss/services.c | 20 +--- security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c | 39