Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 May 2009 11:27:57 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] security: rename ptrace_may_access => ptrace_access_check |
| |
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/07, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > Subject: security: rename ptrace_may_access => ptrace_access_check > > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > > > The ->ptrace_may_access() methods are named confusingly - the real > > ptrace_may_access() returns a bool, while these security checks have > > a retval convention. > > > > Rename it to ptrace_access_check, to reduce the confusion factor. > > Great. Now we can rename (and fix the callers of) ptrace.c:ptrace_may_access() > accordingly. > > But, > > > -static inline int security_ptrace_may_access(struct task_struct *child, > > +static inline int security_ptrace_access_check(struct task_struct *child, > > unsigned int mode) > > You seem to forgot to update the callers of this helper.
Did i mention that it's completely untested :) Yeah, i'd suggest to push this naming down the whole ptrace_may_access landscape, and eliminate the bool. In two separate patches: first the rename, then the bool-elimination (which is more dangerous).
Ingo
| |