Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/13] get rid of audit_reusename()

[Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 6:13 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 1:37 AM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Originally we tried to avoid multiple insertions into audit names array
> > during retry loop by a cute hack - memorize the userland pointer and
> > if there already is a match, just grab an extra reference to it.
> >
> > Cute as it had been, it had problems - two identical pointers had
> > audit aux entries merged, two identical strings did not.  Having
> > different behaviour for syscalls that differ only by addresses of
> > otherwise identical string arguments is obviously wrong - if nothing
> > else, compiler can decide to merge identical string literals.
> >
> > Besides, this hack does nothing for non-audited processes - they get
> > a fresh copy for retry.  It's not time-critical, but having behaviour
> > subtly differ that way is bogus.
> >
> > These days we have very few places that import filename more than once
> > (9 functions total) and it's easy to massage them so we get rid of all
> > re-imports.  With that done, we don't need audit_reusename() anymore.
> > There's no need to memorize userland pointer either.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> > ---
> >  fs/namei.c            | 11 +++--------
> >  include/linux/audit.h | 11 -----------
> >  include/linux/fs.h    |  1 -
> >  kernel/auditsc.c      | 23 -----------------------
> >  4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>
> Looks reasonable to me.  Not sure if you've run it through the
> audit-testsuite yet, but I'm building a test kernel as I write this,
> I'll let you know how it goes.
>
> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>

FWIW, it passes the audit-testsuite.

Tested-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>

-- 
paul-moore.com