Re: [PATCH v2] audit: report audit wait metric in audit status reply
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 9:47 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:16:52 PM EST Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > Author: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
> > > > AuthorDate: 2014-11-17 15:51:01 -0500
> > > > Commit: Paul Moore <pmoore(a)redhat.com>
> > > > CommitDate: 2014-11-17 16:53:51 -0500
> > > > ("audit: convert status version to a feature bitmap")
> > > > It was introduced specifically to enable distributions to
selectively
> > > > backport features. It was converted away from AUDIT_VERSION.
> > > >
> > > > There are other ways to detect the presence of
> > > > backlog_wait_time_actual
> > > > as I mentioned above.
> > >
> > > Let me be blunt - I honestly don't care what Steve's audit
userspace
> > > does to detect this. I've got my own opinion, but Steve's audit
> > > userspace is not my project to manage and I think we've established
> > > over the years that Steve and I have very different views on what
> > > constitutes good design.
> >
> > And guessing what might be in buffers of different sizes is good design?
> > The FEATURE_BITMAP was introduced to get rid of this ambiguity.
>
> There is just soo much to unpack in your comment Steve, but let me
> keep it short ...
>
> - This is an enterprise distro problem, not an upstream problem. The
> problems you are talking about are not a problem for upstream.
You may look at it that way. I do not. Audit -userspace is also an upstream
for a lot of distros and I need to make this painless for them. So, while you
may think of this being a backport problem for Red Hat to solve, I think of
this as a generic problem that I'd like to solve for Debian, Suse, Ubuntu,
Arch, Gentoo, anyone using audit. We both are upstream.
I intentionally said "enterprise Linux distributions", I never singled
out RH/IBM. Contrary to what RH/IBM marketing may have me believe, I
don't consider RHEL to be the only "enterprise Linux distribution" :)
Beyond that, while I haven't looked at all of the distros you list
above, I know a few of them typically only backport fixes, not new
features. Further, as I mentioned previously in this thread, there is
a way to backport this feature in a safe manner without using the
feature bits. Eeeeeven further, if there wasn't a way to backport
this feature safely (and let me stress agai that you can backport this
safely), I would still consider that to be a distro problem and not an
upstream kernel problem. The upstream kernel is not responsible for
enabling or supporting arbitrary combinations of patches.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com