From: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] audit: replace getname()/putname() hacks with reference counters
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:45:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2531966.CgBBZnoLxq@sifl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150114213717.GQ29998@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 04:37:17 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/01/08, Paul Moore wrote:
> > In order to ensure that filenames are not released before the audit
> > subsystem is done with the strings there are a number of hacks built
> > into the fs and audit subsystems around getname() and putname(). To
> > say these hacks are "ugly" would be kind.
> >
> > This patch removes the filename hackery in favor of a more
> > conventional reference count based approach. The diffstat below tells
> > most of the story; lots of audit/fs specific code is replaced with a
> > traditional reference count based approach that is easily understood,
> > even by those not familiar with the audit and/or fs subsystems.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
>
> The only nit I've got is "refcnt" enlarges "struct filename" where I
> would have used a bitfield with "separate".
>
> Otherwise, this looks like an improvement. Thanks.
I agree that it is unfortunate that struct filename increases, but it seemed
liked a valid tradeoff considering that we got to remove the
getname()/putname() hacks in favor of a more traditional approach.
As far the int versus bitfield, I suppose I favor the int in this particular
case, but if the fs folks want a bitfield I can do that.
> Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Thanks for taking the time to review the patchset.
--
paul moore
security @ redhat
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-14 21:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-08 16:50 [RFC PATCH 0/5] Overhaul the audit filename handling Paul Moore
2015-01-08 16:50 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] fs: rework getname_kernel to handle up to PATH_MAX sized filenames Paul Moore
2015-01-14 21:02 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2015-01-08 16:50 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] fs: create proper filename objects using getname_kernel() Paul Moore
2015-01-14 21:03 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2015-01-08 16:50 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] audit: enable filename recording via getname_kernel() Paul Moore
2015-01-14 21:09 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2015-01-08 16:50 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] audit: fix filename matching in __audit_inode() and __audit_inode_child() Paul Moore
2015-01-14 21:21 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2015-01-08 16:50 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] audit: replace getname()/putname() hacks with reference counters Paul Moore
2015-01-14 21:37 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2015-01-14 21:45 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2015-01-12 21:03 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] Overhaul the audit filename handling Paul Moore
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2531966.CgBBZnoLxq@sifl \
--to=pmoore@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rgb@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.