Re: [PATCH] [AUDIT] auditfilter.c cleanup/const-ification

[Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>]

Hi Mitchell,

Thanks for looking at this. 

On Monday 03 April 2006 08:51, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> The gcc warning isn't correct (since audit_filter_user() only looked at
> state if audit_filter_user_rules() returned non-zero, in which case 'state'
> would have been initialized)  However the code was needlessly complex --
> audit_filter_user_rules() carefully populated the "enum audit_state *state"
> with various value but it's only caller just cares if it's AUDIT_DISABLED
> or not.

IIRC, this was done to mirror the filtering of syscalls. I think we discussed 
this last June/July. Anyways it was a long time ago.

> It's shorter and simpler to just let audit_filter_user_rules() 
> modify its caller's return value more directly.  As an added bonus this
> also removes the warning.

Changes to the rule matcher have to be carefully tested just in case something 
obscure needs it. In this case, I don't think so since its a user space 
originating message.

> While I was looking at auditfilter.c I did some other minor cleanup
>
>   * const-ified pointers where possible
>
>   * both audit_data_to_entry() and audit_krule_to_data() had an unused
>     variable called "void *bufp" which I removed
>
>   * [minor] I changed some variables from "int" to "unsigned int" if
>     they can't be negative.  Since ->field_count is unsigned I think it's
>     a little cleaner to use an unsigned type to iterate through it

These are good cleanups. In a way, I wished this was 2 patches instead of 1. 
I'd take all these cleanups immediately. The other one I'd probably want to 
put in the test kernel for a week or two just to make sure nothing relied on 
the state.

Thanks,
-Steve