On Saturday, August 01, 2015 03:44:01 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > Move the access to the entry for audit_match_signal() to the beginning of > the function in case the entry found is the same one passed in. This will > enable it to be used by audit_remove_mark_rule(). > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/auditfilter.c | 3 ++- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c > index 4cb9b44..afb63b3 100644 > --- a/kernel/auditfilter.c > +++ b/kernel/auditfilter.c > @@ -943,6 +943,7 @@ static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_entry > *entry) int ret = 0; > #ifdef CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL > int dont_count = 0; > + int match_signal = !audit_match_signal(entry); > > /* If either of these, don't count towards total */ > if (entry->rule.listnr == AUDIT_FILTER_USER || > @@ -972,7 +973,7 @@ static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_entry > *entry) if (!dont_count) > audit_n_rules--; > > - if (!audit_match_signal(entry)) > + if (match_signal) > audit_signals--; > #endif > mutex_unlock(&audit_filter_mutex);
Why not simply move this second CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL above the list_del() calls? Am I missing something? Also, while we're fixing up audit_del_rule(), why not also move the mutex_unlock() call to after the "out" jump target and then drop the mutex_unlock() call in the audit_find_rule() error case? Not your fault, but the code seems silly as-is. -- paul moore security @ redhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
