On 07/04/2014 05:29 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
Refactor the code and reuse it to implement the functionality. --- src/security/security_selinux.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
static int virSecuritySELinuxSetSecurityDiskLabel(virSecurityManagerPtr mgr, virDomainDefPtr def, virDomainDiskDefPtr disk)
{ - virSecuritySELinuxCallbackData cbdata; - cbdata.manager = mgr; - cbdata.secdef = virDomainDefGetSecurityLabelDef(def, SECURITY_SELINUX_NAME); + bool first = true; + virStorageSourcePtr next;
- if (!cbdata.secdef || cbdata.secdef->norelabel) - return 0; + for (next = disk->src; next; next = next->backingStore) { + if (virSecuritySELinuxSetSecurityImageLabelInternal(mgr, def, next, + first) < 0) + return -1;
Similar question to earlier patches about pre-existing design - if we fail partway through, should we undo our earlier labels on the exit path? But as before, that would be a separate patch (this one is focusing on the refactor with no semantic change, while that patch would be an intentional behavior change). ACK. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org