[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070821.002405.88473654.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: latten@...tin.ibm.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com, sgrubb@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improved xfrm_audit_log() patch
From: Joy Latten <latten@...tin.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:16:29 -0500
> On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 18:32 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >From: Joy Latten <latten@...tin.ibm.com>
> >Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:56:47 -0500
> >
> >> @@ -426,10 +426,15 @@ struct xfrm_audit
> >> };
> >>
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL
> >> -extern void xfrm_audit_log(uid_t auid, u32 secid, int type, int result,
> >> - struct xfrm_policy *xp, struct xfrm_state *x);
> >> +extern void xfrm_audit_log(struct xfrm_audit audit_info, int result,
> >> + __be32 flowid, struct xfrm_policy *xp,
> >> + struct xfrm_state *x, char *buf);
> >
> >Passing audit_info as an aggregate argument puts them into
> >previous argument registers, or if they are not enough it
> >goes either partially of wholly onto the stack, depending
> >upon architecture.
> >
> >In fact you've made the argument register usage worse than
> >in your previous revision. :-/
> >
> >Perhaps you meant to pass "struct xfrm_audit *" instead?
>
> Revised patch to pass pointer to struct xfrm_audit.
> Sorry, I missed that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joy Latten <latten@...tin.ibm.com>
Looks good, applied to net-2.6.24, thanks Joy.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists