From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
sgrubb@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 (was V6)] audit: save signal match info in case entry passed in is the one deleted
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:25:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150805092536.GF32407@madcap2.tricolour.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2901073.DtnZNkzh6Q@sifl>
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@redhat.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@redhat.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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-05 9:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-01 19:44 [PATCH V4 (was V6)] generalize audit_del_rule Richard Guy Briggs
2015-08-01 19:44 ` [PATCH V4 (was V6)] audit: save signal match info in case entry passed in is the one deleted Richard Guy Briggs
2015-08-04 23:04 ` Paul Moore
2015-08-05 9:25 ` Richard Guy Briggs [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150805092536.GF32407@madcap2.tricolour.ca \
--to=rgb@redhat.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmoore@redhat.com \
--cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®