On Friday, January 30, 2015 04:10:44 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 15/01/29, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 07:34:02 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > During a queue overflow condition while we are waiting for auditd to
> > drain
> > the queue to make room for regular messages, we don't want a successful
> > auditd that has bypassed the queue check to reset the backlog wait time.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
> > ---
> >
> > kernel/audit.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> I'm still wondering why we ever change audit_backlog_wait_time, it is only
> so we don't end up calling wait_for_auditd() multiple times while we are
> waiting for the queue to drain?
Not exactly. Up to the timeout, all subsequent callers will wait for
auditd as well. It is so that if wait_for_auditd() does time out, we
don't make new callers after that timeout wait, but return an error
immediately. If/when auditd does manage to succeed and recover after
that wait time, it will reset the wait time and resume normal operation.
Okay, thanks for the clarification on both patches. If I have one nit, it
would be that you could have merged both patches into a single patch; just
something to remember for future submissions.
Like the tree pruning thread patch, I'm going to queue this up for after this
upcoming merge window.
> As a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular, the
audit
> backlog/queue handling looks a little odd ...
Indeed...
I suspect we'll need to look closer at this code in the future, or rather I'll
*want* to look closer at this in the future but for right now I think we've
got enough to deal with.
--
paul moore
security @ redhat