Re: [PATCH 3/3] audit: drop audit_cmd_lock in AUDIT_USER family of cases

2013-12-08 Thread Toshiyuki Okajima
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:45:56 -0500 Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > We do not need to hold the audit_cmd_mutex for this family of cases. The > possible exception to this is the call to audit_filter_user(), so drop the > lock > immediately after. To help in fixing the race we are trying to avoid,

Re: [PATCH 3/3] audit: drop audit_cmd_lock in AUDIT_USER family of cases

2013-12-08 Thread Toshiyuki Okajima
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:45:56 -0500 Richard Guy Briggs r...@redhat.com wrote: We do not need to hold the audit_cmd_mutex for this family of cases. The possible exception to this is the call to audit_filter_user(), so drop the lock immediately after. To help in fixing the race we are trying

[PATCH 3/3] audit: drop audit_cmd_lock in AUDIT_USER family of cases

2013-12-04 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
We do not need to hold the audit_cmd_mutex for this family of cases. The possible exception to this is the call to audit_filter_user(), so drop the lock immediately after. To help in fixing the race we are trying to avoid, make sure that nothing called by audit_filter_user() calls

[PATCH 3/3] audit: drop audit_cmd_lock in AUDIT_USER family of cases

2013-12-04 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
We do not need to hold the audit_cmd_mutex for this family of cases. The possible exception to this is the call to audit_filter_user(), so drop the lock immediately after. To help in fixing the race we are trying to avoid, make sure that nothing called by audit_filter_user() calls