Skip to contentSkip to conversation

audit: fix oops removing watch if audit disabled

PATCH In review Tony Jones 4 participants 5 messages Jun 20, 2007 – Jun 23, 2007 Audit

lore
Share & tools
lore

Tony Jones

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 audit: fix oops removing watch if audit disabled

Removing a watched file will oops if audit is disabled (auditctl -e 0).

To reproduce:
- auditctl -e 1
- touch /tmp/foo
- auditctl -w /tmp/foo
- auditctl -e 0
- rm /tmp/foo (or mv)

Signed-off-by Tony Jones <[email protected]>

---

kernel/auditfilter.c +1 -1
index 74cc0fc..ce61f42 100644
@@ -947,7 +947,7 @@ static void audit_update_watch(struct au
 
 		/* If the update involves invalidating rules, do the inode-based
 		 * filtering now, so we don't omit records. */
-		if (invalidating &&
+		if (invalidating && current->audit_context &&
 		    audit_filter_inodes(current, current->audit_context) == AUDIT_RECORD_CONTEXT)
 			audit_set_auditable(current->audit_context);
#1 lore raw
Quoted 18 lines · On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:38:20 -0700 Tony Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

Removing a watched file will oops if audit is disabled (auditctl -e 0).

To reproduce:
- auditctl -e 1
- touch /tmp/foo
- auditctl -w /tmp/foo
- auditctl -e 0
- rm /tmp/foo (or mv)

Signed-off-by Tony Jones <[email protected]>

---

kernel/auditfilter.c +0 -0
index 74cc0fc..ce61f42 100644

kernel/auditfilter.c static void audit_update_watch(struct au · line 952

Quoted 7 lines
kernel/auditfilter.c +1 -1
@@ -947,7 +947,7 @@ static void audit_update_watch(struct au
 
 		/* If the update involves invalidating rules, do the inode-based
 		 * filtering now, so we don't omit records. */
-		if (invalidating &&
+		if (invalidating && current->audit_context &&
 		    audit_filter_inodes(current, current->audit_context) == AUDIT_RECORD_CONTEXT)
 			audit_set_auditable(current->audit_context);

This looks like 2.6.22 material to me.

Question is: is it also 2.6.21.x material?

#2 lore raw

23 Haz 2007 Cts tarihinde, Andrew Morton şunları yazmıştı:

Quoted 3 lines

This looks like 2.6.22 material to me.

Question is: is it also 2.6.21.x material?

I even can reproduce same oops with 2.6.18 :)

Cheers

Signature · 4 lines
S.Çağlar Onur <[email protected]>
http://cekirdek.pardus.org.tr/~caglar/

Linux is like living in a teepee. No Windows, no Gates and an Apache in house!
#4 lore raw
Quoted 6 lines · On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:16:09 +0100 Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 3 lines · Andrew Morton

This looks like 2.6.22 material to me.

Question is: is it also 2.6.21.x material?

Yes, it is.

OK, thanks, I queued it for both kernels.