[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2531966.CgBBZnoLxq@sifl>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:45:06 -0500
From: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-audit@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] audit: replace getname()/putname() hacks with reference counters
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 04:37:17 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/01/08, Paul Moore wrote:
> > In order to ensure that filenames are not released before the audit
> > subsystem is done with the strings there are a number of hacks built
> > into the fs and audit subsystems around getname() and putname(). To
> > say these hacks are "ugly" would be kind.
> >
> > This patch removes the filename hackery in favor of a more
> > conventional reference count based approach. The diffstat below tells
> > most of the story; lots of audit/fs specific code is replaced with a
> > traditional reference count based approach that is easily understood,
> > even by those not familiar with the audit and/or fs subsystems.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
>
> The only nit I've got is "refcnt" enlarges "struct filename" where I
> would have used a bitfield with "separate".
>
> Otherwise, this looks like an improvement. Thanks.
I agree that it is unfortunate that struct filename increases, but it seemed
liked a valid tradeoff considering that we got to remove the
getname()/putname() hacks in favor of a more traditional approach.
As far the int versus bitfield, I suppose I favor the int in this particular
case, but if the fs folks want a bitfield I can do that.
> Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Thanks for taking the time to review the patchset.
--
paul moore
security @ redhat
--
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