On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 11:36:06AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Dave Jones <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Following on from the previous patch that fixed an oops, these
> > are all the other similar code patterns in the tree with the same
> > checks added. I never saw these causing problems, but checking
> > this everywhere seems to make more sense than every subsequent
> > routine that gets passed 'ab' having to check it.
> >
> > Later we could remove all those same checks from audit_log_format
> > and friends. For now, this just prevents similar bugs being introduced
> > as the one in my previous patch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <da...@redhat.com>
>
> Not certain because I haven't looked at what happens with the error
> code, but I think this might not be right. auditd can be explictly
> told not to audit certain events, in which case it is normal and
> expected that ab would come back NULL....
Ugh, that's a lot messier to have to audit every function that gets
passed 'ab' to make sure it has a NULL check, but ok I'll go look at it.
hopefully audit_log_link_denied was a one off.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
