From owner-p4-projects  Fri Aug  2  6:46:22 2002
Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767)
	id D222737B405; Fri,  2 Aug 2002 06:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5DEBB37B400; Fri,  2 Aug 2002 06:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com (sentry.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.100])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7DB5843E3B; Fri,  2 Aug 2002 06:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from cvance@tislabs.com)
Received: by sentry.gw.tislabs.com; id JAA18375; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:45:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zorg.gw.tislabs.com(10.33.60.104) by sentry.gw.tislabs.com via smap (V5.5)
	id xma018370; Fri, 2 Aug 02 13:45:03 GMT
Received: from localhost (cvance@localhost)
	by zorg.gw.tislabs.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g72Dkxt10425;
	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:46:59 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: zorg.gw.tislabs.com: cvance owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:46:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chris Vance <cvance@tislabs.com>
X-X-Sender:  <cvance@zorg.gw.tislabs.com>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
Cc: Chris Vance <cvance@freebsd.org>,
	Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 15425 for review
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020801221517.90781C-100000@fledge.watson.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0208020939090.10371-100000@zorg.gw.tislabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <p4-projects.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20p4-projects>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20p4-projects>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Robert Watson wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Chris Vance wrote:
[deleted]
> > +		case MAC_SYSCALL:
> > +			mpc->mpc_ops->mpo_mac_policy =
> > +			    mpe->mpe_function;
>
> Looks like you're missing a "break;" here.  Should we rename mac_policy()
> to mac_syscall()?

Yes, I am.  But nobody calls the destroy hook anyway :)

> >  		case MAC_DESTROY:
> >  			mpc->mpc_ops->mpo_destroy =
> >  			    mpe->mpe_function;
> > @@ -3060,6 +3063,40 @@
> >  	return (error);
> >  }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * MPSAFE
> > + */
> > +int
> > +mac_policy(struct thread *td, struct mac_policy_args *uap)
> > +{
> > +	int error;
> > +	char target[128]; /* TBD: should be MAX_MAXNAME or some such */
>
> We probably should define a MAC_POLICY_MAXNAME or something and use that,
> as well as bound the policy name provided by the policy to that length
> during registration.

I'll fix this monday.


> > +	error = copyinstr(uap->policy, target, sizeof(target), NULL);
> > +	if (error == ENAMETOOLONG) {
> > +		return (EINVAL);
> > +	}
>
> I would imagine it's OK to return the error verbatim..?

I wasn't sure what the standard practice for syscalls was, I didn't think
I've ever seen one return ENAMETOOLONG.  It doesn't much matter to me.

chris.



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message