On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 11:37 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-11 14:23, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2025 Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
...
> > diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c
> > index 1fb9ad289a6f..efa62ace1b23 100644
> > --- a/kernel/module/main.c
> > +++ b/kernel/module/main.c
> > @@ -3346,7 +3346,7 @@ static int load_module(struct load_info *info, const char
__user *uargs,
> >
> > module_allocated = true;
> >
> > - audit_log_kern_module(mod->name);
> > + audit_log_kern_module(info->name);
> >
> > /* Reserve our place in the list. */
> > err = add_unformed_module(mod);
> > @@ -3506,8 +3506,10 @@ static int load_module(struct load_info *info, const
char __user *uargs,
> > * failures once the proper module was allocated and
> > * before that.
> > */
> > - if (!module_allocated)
> > + if (!module_allocated) {
> > + audit_log_kern_module(info->name ? info->name :
"(unavailable)");
>
> In keeping with audit tradition, wouldn't we want this to be "?"
instead
> of "(unavailable)"?
Any comment on the above? This is more important than the non-public link ...
> > mod_stat_bump_becoming(info, flags);
> > + }
> > free_copy(info, flags);
> > return err;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.43.5
--
paul-moore.com