On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 4:13 PM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 2:55 PM Ricardo Robaina <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 2:52 PM Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Commit 84470b80b7b0 ("audit: fix recursive locking deadlock in
> > > audit_dupe_exe()") added a ctx parameter to audit_alloc_mark() and
> > > audit_dupe_exe() but did not update the macro stubs used when
> > > CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL is not enabled, resulting in a build error for this
> > > configuration:
> > >
> > >   kernel/auditfilter.c: In function 'audit_data_to_entry':
> > >   kernel/auditfilter.c:592:85: error: macro 'audit_alloc_mark' passed 4 
> > > arguments, but takes just 3
> > >     592 |                         audit_mark = 
> > > audit_alloc_mark(&entry->rule, str, f_val, NULL);
> > >         |                                                                 
> > >                     ^
> > >   In file included from kernel/auditfilter.c:23:
> > >   kernel/audit.h:327:9: note: macro 'audit_alloc_mark' defined here
> > >     327 | #define audit_alloc_mark(k, p, l) (ERR_PTR(-EINVAL))
> > >         |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >   kernel/auditfilter.c:592:38: error: 'audit_alloc_mark' undeclared 
> > > (first use in this function)
> > >     592 |                         audit_mark = 
> > > audit_alloc_mark(&entry->rule, str, f_val, NULL);
> > >         |                                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >   kernel/auditfilter.c:592:38: note: 'audit_alloc_mark' is a 
> > > function-like macro and might be used incorrectly
> > >   kernel/auditfilter.c:592:38: note: each undeclared identifier is 
> > > reported only once for each function it appears in
> > >   kernel/auditfilter.c: In function 'audit_dupe_rule':
> > >   kernel/auditfilter.c:879:59: error: macro 'audit_dupe_exe' passed 3 
> > > arguments, but takes just 2
> > >     879 |                         err = audit_dupe_exe(new, old, ctx);
> > >         |                                                           ^
> > >   kernel/audit.h:333:9: note: macro 'audit_dupe_exe' defined here
> > >     333 | #define audit_dupe_exe(n, o) (-EINVAL)
> > >         |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >   kernel/auditfilter.c:879:31: error: 'audit_dupe_exe' undeclared (first 
> > > use in this function)
> > >     879 |                         err = audit_dupe_exe(new, old, ctx);
> > >         |                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >   kernel/auditfilter.c:879:31: note: 'audit_dupe_exe' is a function-like 
> > > macro and might be used incorrectly
> > >
> > > Update the macros with the correct number of parameters to resolve the
> > > build error.
> > >
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Fixes: 84470b80b7b0 ("audit: fix recursive locking deadlock in 
> > > audit_dupe_exe()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/audit.h | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/audit.h b/kernel/audit.h
> > > index f1a77aef4533..92d5e723d570 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/audit.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/audit.h
> > > @@ -324,13 +324,13 @@ extern struct list_head *audit_killed_trees(void);
> > >  #define audit_watch_path(w) ""
> > >  #define audit_watch_compare(w, i, d) 0
> > >
> > > -#define audit_alloc_mark(k, p, l) (ERR_PTR(-EINVAL))
> > > +#define audit_alloc_mark(k, p, l, c) (ERR_PTR(-EINVAL))
> > >  #define audit_mark_path(m) ""
> > >  #define audit_remove_mark(m) do { } while (0)
> > >  #define audit_remove_mark_rule(k) do { } while (0)
> > >  #define audit_mark_compare(m, i, d) 0
> > >  #define audit_exe_compare(t, m) (-EINVAL)
> > > -#define audit_dupe_exe(n, o) (-EINVAL)
> > > +#define audit_dupe_exe(n, o, c) (-EINVAL)
> > >
> > >  #define audit_remove_tree_rule(rule) BUG()
> > >  #define audit_add_tree_rule(rule) -EINVAL
> > >
> > > ---
> > > base-commit: 82bc8394b1aa74aedb9827da7730cfa6639716fd
> > > change-id: 20260527-audit-update-macro-stubs-6e4d8e8a826e
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Nathan
> > >
> >
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > Good catch, I did miss that! Looks good to me, thanks for fixing it.
> >
> > Acked-by: Ricardo Robaina <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks Nathan!
>
> Do either of you mind if I squash these two patches together in the
> audit tree?  I would preserve Nathan's sign-off line and add a comment
> at the end of the commit description about the fix provided by Nathan.
>
> --
> paul-moore.com
>

It's fine by me.


Reply via email to