Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 2/7] keys: initialize root uid and session keyrings early | From | Mimi Zohar <> | Date | Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:01:18 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:59 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:13 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> >> > +#include "internal.h" > >> >> > +static int __init init_root_keyring(void) > >> >> > +{ > >> >> > + return install_user_keyrings(); > >> >> > +} > >> >> > + > >> >> > +late_initcall(init_root_keyring); > >> >> > -- > >> >> > >> >> Why is this in an entirely new file instead of just being added to > >> >> process_keys.c ? > >> >> > >> >> josh > >> > > >> > Only when "CONFIG_INTEGRITY_SIGNATURE" is selected, does this get built. > >> > >> Yes, I noticed that. It doesn't explain why it's in its own file. You > >> could accomplish the same thing by wrapping the function and initcall > >> in #ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY_SIGNATURE in process_keys.c. > > > > I was under the impression using 'ifdefs' in 'C' code was frowned upon > > (Documentation/SubmittingPatches section 2.2). This would be an > > exception? > > If it makes a big ugly mess it's frowned upon. But if you're adding 7 > lines of code in a new file that will almost certainly never get more > code added to it, I'm not sure. IMHO, it can go into an existing file. > Others might disagree. Isn't Linux development fun?!
This is just a case where if I had 'ifdef's in 'C' code, I'm sure someone would have complained. :)
Mimi
| |