linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH ALT4 V2 1/2] audit: show fstype:pathname for entries with anonymous parents

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20170629195817.4ea4906e@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2017 19:58:17 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-audit@...hat.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ALT4 V2 1/2] audit: show fstype:pathname for entries
 with anonymous parents

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:21:22 -0400
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:

> > Looking at this again today, why would we want to clear name->dentry
> > in audit_copy_inode() if it is already set?  Does that ever happen?
> > I'm not sure it does ...  
> 
> It has been nearly 3 months since I coded that, so I'll have to dive in
> and re-analyse what I was thinking at that time.  I think that rationale
> was that if audit_copy_inode() is called again on that audit_name struct
> that it could be called by audit_log_link_denied() or __audit_inode()
> not needing the dentry reference or even by __audit_inode_child() and
> have it replaced, needing a reference count correction.
>

Just a note. If after 3 months you need to re-analyze, you either need
to design things simpler, or have better comments in the code.

-- Steve