----- Original Message -----
> 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];
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.
while(1)
auditctl -a exit,always -w /etc -F auid=-1
--
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/
