Re: [PATCH V3 02/10] capabilities: intuitive names for cap gain status

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge(a)hallyn.com&gt; wrote: > Quoting Richard Guy Briggs (rgb(a)redhat.com): >> On 2017-08-24 11:03, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> > Quoting Richard Guy Briggs (rgb(a)redhat.com): >> > > Introduce macros cap_gained, cap_grew, cap_full to make the use of the >> > > negation of is_subset() easier to read and analyse. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; >> > > --- >> > > security/commoncap.c | 16 ++++++++++------ >> > > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c >> > > index b7fbf77..6f05ec0 100644 >> > > --- a/security/commoncap.c >> > > +++ b/security/commoncap.c >> > > @@ -513,6 +513,12 @@ void handle_privileged_root(struct linux_binprm *bprm, bool has_cap, bool *effec >> > > *effective = true; >> > > } >> > > >> > >> > It's subjective and so might be just me, but I think I'd find it easier >> > to read if it was cap_gained(source, target, field) and cap_grew(cred, source, target) >> >> In more than one place, I wanted to put the parameter that I was trying >> to read aloud closest to the function name to make reading it flow >> better, leaving the parameters less critical to comprehension towards >> the end. > > And I see that in the final patch it looks nicer the way you have it. > >> > This looks correct though, so either way >> > >> > Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge(a)hallyn.com&gt; >> >> Thanks. Did you want to put this through, or send it through Paul's >> audit tree? > > If Paul's around I'm happy to have it go through his tree. Is this series based against -next with the changes that touch commoncap.c?

Also, did you validate this with the existing LTP tests and selftests? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=...

Kees Cook