Re: [PATCH 1/5] xattr: Complete constify ->name member of "struct xattr"

[PATCH 0/5] evm: Prepare for moving to the LSM infrastructure · Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> · 2021-04-15
[PATCH 1/5] xattr: Complete constify ->name member of "struct xattr" · Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> · 2021-04-15
Re: [PATCH 1/5] xattr: Complete constify ->name member of "struct xattr" · Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> · 2021-04-15
RE: [PATCH 1/5] xattr: Complete constify ->name member of "struct xattr" · Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> · 2021-04-15
[PATCH 2/5] security: Support multiple LSMs implementing the inode_init_security hook · Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> · 2021-04-15
[PATCH 3/5] security: Pass xattrs allocated by LSMs to the inode_init_security hook · Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> · 2021-04-15
[PATCH 4/5] evm: Align evm_inode_init_security() definition with LSM infrastructure · Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> · 2021-04-15
[PATCH 5/5] evm: Support multiple LSMs providing an xattr · Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> · 2021-04-15
Re: [PATCH 0/5] evm: Prepare for moving to the LSM infrastructure · Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> · 2021-04-15
RE: [PATCH 0/5] evm: Prepare for moving to the LSM infrastructure · Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> · 2021-04-16
Re: [PATCH 0/5] evm: Prepare for moving to the LSM infrastructure · Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> · 2021-04-16
RE: [PATCH 0/5] evm: Prepare for moving to the LSM infrastructure · Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> · 2021-04-20

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: 2021-04-15 11:20:43
Also in: linux-integrity, lkml, selinux, stable

On 2021/04/15 19:04, Roberto Sassu wrote:

This patch completes commit 9548906b2bb7 ('xattr: Constify ->name member of
"struct xattr"'). It fixes the documentation of the inode_init_security
hook, by removing the xattr name from the objects that are expected to be
allocated by LSMs (only the value is allocated). Also, it removes the
kfree() of name and setting it to NULL in the reiserfs code.

Good catch, but well, grep does not find any reiserfs_security_free() callers.
Is reiserfs_security_free() a dead code?

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help