Re: [PATCH 4/5] device_cgroup: make may_access() stronger

2012-12-03 Thread Aristeu Rozanski
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 09:44:14AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > I kinda dislike this. This isn't a performanc critical path where we > must try our best to shave off a few condition checks. There's no > reason to encode the test like this. Please just spell the conditions > out in code rather than

Re: [PATCH 4/5] device_cgroup: make may_access() stronger

2012-12-03 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:35:05PM -0500, Aristeu Rozanski wrote: > @@ -375,22 +376,33 @@ > continue; > if (refex->access & (~ex->access)) > continue; > - match = true; > + match = 1; > break; >

[PATCH 4/5] device_cgroup: make may_access() stronger

2012-11-27 Thread Aristeu Rozanski
In order to revalidate local exceptions for the hierarchy change propagation, make may_access() stronger. Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Serge Hallyn Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski --- security/device_cgroup.c | 36 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)