On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:21:22 -0400 Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.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
