[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150805092536.GF32407@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:25:36 -0400
From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-audit@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sgrubb@...hat.com, eparis@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 (was V6)] audit: save signal match info in case entry
passed in is the one deleted
On 15/08/04, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Saturday, August 01, 2015 03:44:01 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > Move the access to the entry for audit_match_signal() to the beginning of
> > the function in case the entry found is the same one passed in. This will
> > enable it to be used by audit_remove_mark_rule().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/auditfilter.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c
> > index 4cb9b44..afb63b3 100644
> > --- a/kernel/auditfilter.c
> > +++ b/kernel/auditfilter.c
> > @@ -943,6 +943,7 @@ static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_entry
> > *entry) int ret = 0;
> > #ifdef CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL
> > int dont_count = 0;
> > + int match_signal = !audit_match_signal(entry);
> >
> > /* If either of these, don't count towards total */
> > if (entry->rule.listnr == AUDIT_FILTER_USER ||
> > @@ -972,7 +973,7 @@ static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_entry
> > *entry) if (!dont_count)
> > audit_n_rules--;
> >
> > - if (!audit_match_signal(entry))
> > + if (match_signal)
> > audit_signals--;
> > #endif
> > mutex_unlock(&audit_filter_mutex);
>
> Why not simply move this second CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL above the list_del()
> calls? Am I missing something?
Good point. That did occur to me at one point when I wasn't in front of
the code and promptly forgot once I was. That will neatly remove the
temporary variable.
> Also, while we're fixing up audit_del_rule(), why not also move the
> mutex_unlock() call to after the "out" jump target and then drop the
> mutex_unlock() call in the audit_find_rule() error case? Not your fault, but
> the code seems silly as-is.
Yes, agreed. Another nice catch.
These changes will affect "audit by executable" so I'll re-spin that
patch set to make it easier to apply.
> paul moore
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@...hat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
--
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