[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130522141818.25520521fe5ebcd5acf61bf5@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/auditfilter.c: need process 'tree' when
audit_add_watch() failed in audit_add_rule().
On Fri, 10 May 2013 18:12:26 +0800 Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com> wrote:
>
> If both 'tree' and 'watch' are valid, need call audit_put_tree(), just
> like the upper area has done within function audit_add_rule().
>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
> ---
> kernel/auditfilter.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c
> index f9fc54b..81f63f9 100644
> --- a/kernel/auditfilter.c
> +++ b/kernel/auditfilter.c
> @@ -952,6 +952,12 @@ static inline int audit_add_rule(struct audit_entry *entry)
> err = audit_add_watch(&entry->rule, &list);
> if (err) {
> mutex_unlock(&audit_filter_mutex);
> + /*
> + * normally audit_add_tree_rule() will free it
> + * on failure
> + */
> + if (tree)
> + audit_put_tree(tree);
> goto error;
> }
> }
Are you sure? Or is the earlier audit_put_tree(tree) wrong?
Where is the "get" which this "put" is undoing?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists