[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [RFC][PATCH] (#6 U1) the latest incarnation



On Thursday 24 March 2005 10:28 am, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 14:22 -0600, Timothy R. Chavez wrote:
> > This is the latest patch.
>
> Other comments:
>
> - As it stands with your patch, alloc_inode() will leak memory if
> audit_inode_alloc() succeeds but security_inode_alloc() fails because
> nothing frees the audit data on the error handling path for that case.

Is this too bold of a statement:

fs/inode.c: inode_alloc

if (audit_inode_alloc(inode) && security_inode_alloc(inode)) {
	....
}

I figure, that if either is unsuccessful, we're probably not in any shape to 
audit anyway... and visa versa.  Is this a reasonable assumption?  Or is it 
too assertive?

-tim


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]