Re: [PATCH V1] audit: add warning that an old auditd may be starved out by a new auditd

On 15/09/14, Paul Moore wrote: > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 12:08:19 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 15/09/11, Paul Moore wrote: > > > Although I suppose if nothing else we could send a record indicating > > > that another auditd attempted to replace it ... if we can send it > > > great, drop the new request and be glad we audited it, if we can't > > > send it, reset the auditd tracking. > > > > This is actually a good idea. > > This would go well with your last patch to try harder on netlink send > failures. Re-looking at the AUDIT_STATUS_PID case, I'm noticing we only audit_log_config_change() on success. At the moment, auditd userspace doesn't know about this new AUDIT_PING netlink message type I'm adding for testing the health of the existing audit, so it will just be dropped by existing auditd. I think it makes sense to add audit_log_config_change() on both the orphaning and starving cases indicating the result=0 so that there is a record. Arguably the orphaning case can never happen again since the starving fix will prevent a newer auditd from running.