linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend] audit: fix mark refcounting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87k45yjk2k.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:49:39 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] audit: fix mark refcounting

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> Looks reasonable, but why doesn't all callers have that "put_mark()" thing?
>
> And if/when all callers *do* have that put_mark() thing, maybe we
> should make destroy_mark() just do it?
>
> In particular, a quick grep shows that there are destroy_mark users still in:
>
>  - fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
>
>  - fs/notify/dnotify/dnotify.c (2 of them)

These do in fact do "put_mark()" after the "destroy_mark()".

>
>  - fs/notify/inotify/inotify_fsnotify.c

This one, I think, is broken.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/