2008-10-03 14:24:11

by Andy Whitcroft

Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] NFS/RPC: Add the auth_seclabel security flavor to allow the process label to be sent to the server.

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 01:06:23PM -0400, David P. Quigley wrote:
[...]
>
> + if (dom->flavour != &svcauth_unix
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> + && dom->flavour != &svcauth_seclabel
> +#endif
> + )
> if (dom->flavour != &svcauth_unix)
> return -EINVAL;
> udom = container_of(dom, struct unix_domain, h);
> @@ -873,3 +889,80 @@ struct auth_ops svcauth_unix = {
> .set_client = svcauth_unix_set_client,
> };

checkpatch picked up on a suspect code indent for this hunk. It is
unhappy about the second if expecting it to be indented. By the looks
of this I am suspecting a miss-merge of the change in this function and
the second if should have been removed. To my reading it actually still
does the right thing but ...

-apw

2008-10-03 15:55:24

by Matthew N. Dodd

Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] NFS/RPC: Add the auth_seclabel security flavor to allow the process label to be sent to the server.

Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 01:06:23PM -0400, David P. Quigley wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> + if (dom->flavour != &svcauth_unix
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
>> + && dom->flavour != &svcauth_seclabel
>> +#endif
>> + )
>> if (dom->flavour != &svcauth_unix)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> udom = container_of(dom, struct unix_domain, h);
>> @@ -873,3 +889,80 @@ struct auth_ops svcauth_unix = {
>> .set_client = svcauth_unix_set_client,
>> };
>
> checkpatch picked up on a suspect code indent for this hunk. It is
> unhappy about the second if expecting it to be indented. By the looks
> of this I am suspecting a miss-merge of the change in this function and
> the second if should have been removed. To my reading it actually still
> does the right thing but ...

This does appear to be a miss-merge.