Re: Is zero a valid value for the pid member of the AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO message?

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:35:56 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > I looked at converting audit_sig_pid from pid_t to struct pid *, but > > > then get_pid() would also be needed to protect that reference. A > > > put_pid() would need to be done once it is no longer needed, which could > > > be immediately after it is read in the AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO message > > > preparation, assuming it would never need to be read again. If this > > > isn't the case, put_pid() could be called when audit_pid is nulled, but > > > if that message never comes, that struct pid is stuck with a stale > > > refcount. (That isn't an issue if it is init or systemd, but it is > > > still wrong.) > > > > > > This looks more and more like overkill and should probably leave > > > audit_sig_pid as pid_t. > > > > The code has been working good for a long time. I am wondering if the > > original intent was to make it general in case we decided to add more > > signals that we are interested in. > > Such as HUP to reread config or other possibilities? I think we started with sigterm. Then we needed sighup. Then needed usr1 & usr2. Somewhere along the way I think it was just decided to make it open ended in case more were needed later.

-Steve