Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211016072351.237745-1-cuigaosheng1@huawei.com>
 <20211016072351.237745-3-cuigaosheng1@huawei.com> <5543735.DvuYhMxLoT@x2>
In-Reply-To: <5543735.DvuYhMxLoT@x2>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:53:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTtyQKVkWbBy9DTYiZzZCcMspfruPzx3Kf5ZgD4UzsX0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next, v3 2/2] audit: return early if the rule has a lower priority
To:     Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Cc:     Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>, rgb@redhat.com,
        linux-audit@redhat.com, wangweiyang2@huawei.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:51 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com> wrote:
> Just wondering something... If the first thing we do is to decide to return,
> should we have called the function in the first place? I wonder if this test
> should be used to break out of the rule iteration loops so that we don't keep
> calling only to return ?

Patches are welcome ... ;)

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com