On 2013年04月11日 22:34, Chen Gang wrote: > On 2013年04月11日 21:40, Eric Paris wrote: >>>> >> > can we add it in audit_free_rule ? >>>> >> > >>>> >> > maybe like this: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > @@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ static inline void audit_free_rule(struct >>>> >> > audit_entry *e) >>>> >> > /* some rules don't have associated watches */ >>>> >> > if (erule->watch) >>>> >> > audit_put_watch(erule->watch); >>>> >> > + if (erule->tree) >>>> >> > + audit_put_tree(erule->tree); >>>> >> > if (erule->fields) >>>> >> > for (i = 0; i < erule->field_count; i++) { >>>> >> > struct audit_field *f = &erule->fields[i]; >> > Where does the tree information get freed normally? That's the code you >> > need to run down. You don't want to start getting double frees on the >> > non-error case. I'll try to dig into it if Al doesn't. It's easy to show >> > the leak on current kernels. >> >
oh.. it seems another issues need consider !! a. in function audit_remove_watch_rule, it does not set NULL for krule->watch. b. function audit_del_rule and audit_remove_watch_rule need lock protected. it seems we should call audit_del_rule in audit_free_rule. audit_del_rule will instead of audit_put_watch and audit_put_tree. but we need consider whether will cause dead lock ! I will continue to see it. > I think: > it is in function audit_del_rule. when del, also set NULL. > so the deletion in audit_free_rule is safe. > the process of erule->watch and erule->tree are similar. > > please check, thanks. > > >> > while(1) >> > auditctl -a exit,always -w /etc -F auid=-1 >> > >> > >> > > it is valuable to me, thanks. > -- Chen Gang Asianux Corporation -- 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/