Re: [PATCH] seclvl: use securityfs

[serue@us.ibm.com]

Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org):
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, serue@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> This looks like a nice cleanup.
> 
> > +
> > +	if (count < 0 || count >= PAGE_SIZE)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +	if (*ppos != 0) {
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> 
> Why is the first error there -ENOMEM and not -EINVAL?

Thanks James, that should be -EINVAL for both.  For that matter, the
braces in the next line shouldn't be there.  Obvious patch appended.

thanks,
-serge

Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
--
 seclvl.c |    5 ++---
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6.13-rc5-mm1/security/seclvl.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.13-rc5-mm1.orig/security/seclvl.c	2005-08-08 17:22:45.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.13-rc5-mm1/security/seclvl.c	2005-08-09 13:45:31.000000000 -0500
@@ -252,10 +252,9 @@ passwd_write_file(struct file * file, co
 	}
 
 	if (count < 0 || count >= PAGE_SIZE)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-	if (*ppos != 0) {
 		return -EINVAL;
-	}
+	if (*ppos != 0)
+		return -EINVAL;
 	page = (char *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!page)
 		return -ENOMEM;