Re: [PATCH v7 02/49] audit: pass in dentry to audit_copy_inode wherever possible

Jeff Layton
2012-10-02T16:40:50Z

On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 11:53:38 -0400
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:16:11PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > In some cases, we were passing in NULL even when we have a dentry.
> >
> > Reported-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/auditsc.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c
> > index 4b96415..5c45b9b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c
> > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c
> > @@ -2226,7 +2226,7 @@ void __audit_inode_child(const struct dentry *dentry,
> > if (!strcmp(dname, n->name) ||
> > !audit_compare_dname_path(dname, n->name, &dirlen)) {
> > if (inode)
> > - audit_copy_inode(n, NULL, inode);
> > + audit_copy_inode(n, dentry, inode);
>
> Btw, the calling conventions here also seems fairly ugly.
>
> Instead of the optional dentry parameter I'd have a audit_copy_inode
> that takes just the name and the inode, and an optional direct call
> to audit_copy_fcaps for those callers that have a dentry. That would
> also allow removing the branch for the dentry == NULL case in
> audit_copy_fcaps.
>

[...]

> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:16:12PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > If name is NULL then the condition in the loop will never be true. Also,
> > with this change, we can eliminate the check for n->name == NULL since
> > the equivalence check will never be true if it is.
>
> Given that name == NULL is a static condition it seems like these
> should be two different calls, E.g. audit_dentry and audit_path.
>

Thanks Christoph,

Both of the above are good suggestions, but I'd prefer not to have to
respin this whole set to implement them. I believe what I have here is
an improvement on what's there now. Do you have any objection to doing
the above in a separate set on top of this series?

--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>