On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 22:18 +0200, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:

> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c 
> > b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> > index cb0d0ff..6b4694a 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> > @@ -74,13 +74,12 @@ enum integrity_status ima_get_cache_status(struct 
> > integrity_iint_cache *iint,
> >                 return iint->ima_mmap_status;
> >         case BPRM_CHECK:
> >                 return iint->ima_bprm_status;
> > -       case MODULE_CHECK:
> > -               return iint->ima_module_status;
> > -       case FIRMWARE_CHECK:
> > -               return iint->ima_firmware_status;
> >         case FILE_CHECK:
> > -       default:
> > +       case POST_SETATTR:
> >                 return iint->ima_file_status;
> > +       case MODULE_CHECK ... MAX_CHECK - 1:
> 
> Will LLVM clang handles this range?
> 
> Otherwise it can be just like:
> 
> case MODULE_CHECK ... MAX_CHECK :

Yes, my test program compiled fine with clang.  Similar usage exists in
the kernel (eg. fs/afs/callback.c).

Mimi


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Reply via email to