Steve Grubb wrote: [Thu Sep 07 2006, 05:22:53PM EDT]
Do you mind if we switch the order of these? Maybe path, key, list.
Done.
Make the audit message for implicit rule removal more informative.
Make the rule update message consistent with other messages.
Signed-off-by: Amy Griffis <amy.griffis(a)hp.com>
---
diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c
index cba0708..a44879b 100644
--- a/kernel/auditfilter.c
+++ b/kernel/auditfilter.c
@@ -931,7 +931,7 @@ static void audit_update_watch(struct au
}
ab = audit_log_start(NULL, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_CONFIG_CHANGE);
- audit_log_format(ab, "audit updated rules specifying watch=");
+ audit_log_format(ab, "audit updated rules specifying path=");
audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, owatch->path);
audit_log_format(ab, " with dev=%u ino=%lu\n", dev, ino);
audit_log_end(ab);
@@ -954,19 +954,28 @@ static void audit_remove_parent_watches(
struct audit_watch *w, *nextw;
struct audit_krule *r, *nextr;
struct audit_entry *e;
+ struct audit_buffer *ab;
mutex_lock(&audit_filter_mutex);
parent->flags |= AUDIT_PARENT_INVALID;
list_for_each_entry_safe(w, nextw, &parent->watches, wlist) {
list_for_each_entry_safe(r, nextr, &w->rules, rlist) {
e = container_of(r, struct audit_entry, rule);
+
+ ab = audit_log_start(NULL, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_CONFIG_CHANGE);
+ audit_log_format(ab, "audit implicitly removed rule path=");
+ audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, w->path);
+ if (r->filterkey) {
+ audit_log_format(ab, " key=");
+ audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, r->filterkey);
+ } else
+ audit_log_format(ab, " key=(null)");
+ audit_log_format(ab, " list=%d", r->listnr);
+ audit_log_end(ab);
+
list_del(&r->rlist);
list_del_rcu(&e->list);
call_rcu(&e->rcu, audit_free_rule_rcu);
-
- audit_log(NULL, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_CONFIG_CHANGE,
- "audit implicitly removed rule from list=%d\n",
- AUDIT_FILTER_EXIT);
}
audit_remove_watch(w);
}