Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201015104649.2104432-1-a.nogikh@gmail.com> <20201015104649.2104432-2-a.nogikh@gmail.com>
 <20201015153009.GA26517@mail.hallyn.com>
In-Reply-To: <20201015153009.GA26517@mail.hallyn.com>
From:   Aleksandr Nogikh <a.nogikh@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:00:25 +0300
Message-ID: <CADpXja-oWx7K4Zcsv57boUhg08-JhxzSYiVpWSNh9DfpxKTXjA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] security: add fault injection capability
To:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc:     jmorris@namei.org, akinobu.mita@gmail.com,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 18:30, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
[...]
> seeing 'should_fail' here, kind of out of context, would be confusing to
> thousands of ppl reading the code and wondering why it should fail.  maybe
> "inject_fail_lsm_hook()" ?

Sounds reasonable, thank you for the suggestion. I'll rename this
function in v2.