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

[Dustin Kirkland]

On 1/11/06, Amy Griffis <amy.griffis at hp.com> 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?

:-Dustin