On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:50:47AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
> This patch adjust the example code with following two purpose:
>
> * reduce the confusion on not releasing e->lock
> * emphasize e is valid and not stale with e->lock held
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <[email protected]>
> CC: Boqun Feng <[email protected]>
> CC: Alan Huang <[email protected]>
>
Alan, could you take a look and if all looks reasonable to you, maybe a
Reviewed-by or Acked-by? Thanks!
Regards,
Boqun
> ---
> v2:
> * add the missing parameter *key
> * make function return struct audit_entry
> ---
> Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst
> index ed5c9d8c9afe..d8bb98623c12 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst
> @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ If the system-call audit module were to ever need to
> reject stale data, one way
> to accomplish this would be to add a ``deleted`` flag and a ``lock``
> spinlock to the
> ``audit_entry`` structure, and modify audit_filter_task() as follows::
>
> - static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
> + static struct audit_entry *audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk,
> char **key)
> {
> struct audit_entry *e;
> enum audit_state state;
> @@ -346,16 +346,18 @@ to accomplish this would be to add a ``deleted`` flag
> and a ``lock`` spinlock to
> if (e->deleted) {
> spin_unlock(&e->lock);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> - return AUDIT_BUILD_CONTEXT;
> + return NULL;
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> if (state == AUDIT_STATE_RECORD)
> *key = kstrdup(e->rule.filterkey,
> GFP_ATOMIC);
> - return state;
> + /* As long as e->lock is held, e is valid and
> + * its value is not stale */
> + return e;
> }
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> - return AUDIT_BUILD_CONTEXT;
> + return NULL;
> }
>
> The ``audit_del_rule()`` function would need to set the ``deleted`` flag
> under the
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>
