Re: [PATCH V4 (was V6)] audit: save signal match info in case entry passed in is the one deleted

[Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>]

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 <rgb@redhat.com>
> ---
>  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