On 10/14/2015 04:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 08:57:55 PM Scott Matheina wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Scott Matheina <sc...@matheina.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/auditfilter.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> Sorry for the delay in reviewing this, comments inline ...
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c
>> index 7714d93..774f9ad 100644
>> --- a/kernel/auditfilter.c
>> +++ b/kernel/auditfilter.c
>> @@ -39,13 +39,13 @@
>> * Locking model:
>> *
>> * audit_filter_mutex:
>> - * Synchronizes writes and blocking reads of audit's filterlist
>> - * data. Rcu is used to traverse the filterlist and access
>> - * contents of structs audit_entry, audit_watch and opaque
>> - * LSM rules during filtering. If modified, these structures
>> - * must be copied and replace their counterparts in the filterlist.
>> - * An audit_parent struct is not accessed during filtering, so may
>> - * be written directly provided audit_filter_mutex is held.
>> + * Synchronizes writes and blocking reads of audit's filterlist
>> + * data. Rcu is used to traverse the filterlist and access
>> + * contents of structs audit_entry, audit_watch and opaque
>> + * LSM rules during filtering. If modified, these structures
>> + * must be copied and replace their counterparts in the filterlist.
>> + * An audit_parent struct is not accessed during filtering, so may
>> + * be written directly provided audit_filter_mutex is held.
>> */
> Okay, that's fine.
>
>> /* Audit filter lists, defined in <linux/audit.h> */
>> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ void audit_free_rule_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
>> {
>> struct audit_entry *e = container_of(head, struct audit_entry, rcu);
>> audit_free_rule(e);
>> +
>> }
> Why?
I was following the error messages in checkpatch.pl, but the warning went away
after adding this line. No problem
with the code.
>> /* Initialize an audit filterlist entry. */
>> @@ -176,9 +177,11 @@ static __u32 *classes[AUDIT_SYSCALL_CLASSES];
>> int __init audit_register_class(int class, unsigned *list)
>> {
>> __u32 *p = kcalloc(AUDIT_BITMASK_SIZE, sizeof(__u32), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +
>> if (!p)
>> return -ENOMEM;
> Okay.
>
>> while (*list != ~0U) {
>> +
>> unsigned n = *list++;
>> if (n >= AUDIT_BITMASK_SIZE * 32 - AUDIT_SYSCALL_CLASSES) {
>> kfree(p);
> Why?
This is the same as above. Just going through the checkpatch.pl script, and
looking for warnings to fix.
As you might have guessed, this is one of my first patches. I wasn't sure if a
patch like this would even get
reviewed, and responded to. I'm subscribed to the linux-kernel mail group, and
seeing what is acceptable.
Thanks for the review. I don't plan on making a habit of submitting such
incredibly trivial patches, but you
have to start somewhere, and I thought it'd be hard to screw up by fixing a
couple of trivial style errors.
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
