PERFORCE change 15425 for review

[Chris Vance]

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 at trustedbsd.org
with "unsubscribe trustedbsd-cvs" in the body of the message