Re: [PATCH 1/2] audit string fields interface + consumer

On 1/11/06, Amy Griffis <amy.griffis(a)hp.com&gt; wrote: > +static struct audit_entry *audit_data_to_entry(struct audit_rule_data *data, > + size_t datasz) > { > + int err = 0; > + struct audit_entry *entry; > + void *bufp; > + /* size_t remain = datasz - sizeof(struct audit_rule_data); */ > int i; > > - if (a->flags != b->flags) > - return 1; > + entry = audit_to_entry_common((struct audit_rule *)data); > + if (IS_ERR(entry)) > + goto exit_nofree; > + > + bufp = data->buf; > + entry->rule.vers_ops = 2; > + for (i = 0; i < data->field_count; i++) { > + struct audit_field *f = &entry->rule.fields[i]; > + > + err = -EINVAL; > + if (!(data->fieldflags[i] & AUDIT_OPERATORS) || > + data->fieldflags[i] & ~AUDIT_OPERATORS) > + goto exit_free; > + > + f->op = data->fieldflags[i] & AUDIT_OPERATORS; > + f->type = data->fields[i]; > + switch(f->type) { > + /* call type-specific conversion routines here */ > + default: > + f->val = data->values[i]; > + } > + } > > - if (a->action != b->action) > - return 1; > +exit_nofree: > + return entry; > + > +exit_free: > + kfree(entry); > + return ERR_PTR(err); > +} Amy- I'm noticing that this code does not yet do anything with the the strings potentially in data->buf... Is this still on your to-do, or was this intentional?