From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752117AbdF3NJU (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:09:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57043 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751905AbdF3NHs (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:07:48 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 32ACC6B22D Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rgb@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 32ACC6B22D Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:07:35 -0400 From: Richard Guy Briggs To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Paul Moore , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ingo Molnar , Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH ALT4 V2 1/2] audit: show fstype:pathname for entries with anonymous parents Message-ID: <20170630130735.GA17720@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <20170627211138.GE27193@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20170629212122.GG27193@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20170629195817.4ea4906e@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170629195817.4ea4906e@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:07:47 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2017-06-29 19:58, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:21:22 -0400 > Richard Guy Briggs 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. Yep, both occurred to me. ;-) Thanks Steve. > -- Steve - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635