On 2013年04月11日 05:19, Eric Paris wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> > b. has an new issue for AUDIT_DIR:
>> > after AUDIT_DIR succeed, it will set rule->tree.
>> > next, the other case fail, then will call audit_free_rule.
>> > but audit_free_rule will not free rule->tree.
> Definitely a couple of leaks here...
>
> I'm seeing leaks on size 8, 64, and 128.
>
> Al, what do you think? Should I be calling audit_put_tree() in the error
> case if entry->tree != NULL? The audit trees are some of the most complex
> code in the kernel I think.
>
>
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];
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/
