On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:04:02 +0800 Chen Gang <gang.c...@asianux.com> wrote:
> since "normally audit_add_tree_rule() will free it on failure",
> need free it completely, when failure occures.
>
> need additional put_tree before return, since get_tree was called.
> always need goto error processing area for list_del_init.
Isn't that get_tree() in audit_add_tree_rule() simply unneeded? In
other words, is this patch correct:
--- a/kernel/audit_tree.c~a
+++ a/kernel/audit_tree.c
@@ -682,7 +682,6 @@ int audit_add_tree_rule(struct audit_kru
goto Err;
}
- get_tree(tree);
err = iterate_mounts(tag_mount, tree, mnt);
drop_collected_mounts(mnt);
@@ -703,7 +702,6 @@ int audit_add_tree_rule(struct audit_kru
return -ENOENT;
}
rule->tree = tree;
- put_tree(tree);
return 0;
Err:
_
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
