On 15/10/18, Scott Matheina wrote:
> 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.
That sounds like a bug in checkpatch.pl, since that blank line should be
tween the declaration and the function call.
> >> /* 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.
Again, another manifestation of that bug? That blank line should be
after the declaration and before the if statement.
> 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.
Well, I agree, you have to start somewhere... Too bad you hit a bug in
checkpatch.pl!
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbri...@redhat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red
Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
--
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/
