linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/auditfilter.c: need process 'tree' when audit_add_watch() failed in audit_add

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <519D7116.7090107@asianux.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 May 2013 09:29:58 +0800
From:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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 05/23/2013 05:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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?
> 

Yes I am sure.

Since audit_add_tree_rule() will really free it on failure, we have to
be sure to free it in another area within audit_add_rule().


> Where is the "get" which this "put" is undoing?
> 
> 

"Allocating tree" is the "get", this "put" will really free the tree.



Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Asianux Corporation
--
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/