Re: proposing [PATCH] audit: get rid of *NO* daemon at audit_pid=0 message

On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 00:05 +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > Hello, > > I wrote a trivial patch for what I believe is a subsystem you maintain. > > I'm sending it privately first to ensure it looks ok at has proper > recipients (I'm new to linux world, sorry :>). > > 'To' would be: linux-audit(a)redhat.com > > The rest is: > > From: Mateusz Guzik <mguzik(a)redhat.com&gt; > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:51:52 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] audit: get rid of *NO* daemon at audit_pid=0 message > > kauditd_send_skb is called after audit_pid was checked to be non-zero. > > However, it can be set to 0 due to auditd exiting while kauditd_send_skb > is still executed and this can result in a spurious warning about missing > auditd. > > Re-check audit_pid before printing the message.

> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mguzik(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: Eric Paris <eparis(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: linux-kernel(a)vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Eric Paris <eparis(a)redhat.com&gt; > kernel/audit.c | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c > index 7b0e23a..a91a965 100644 > --- a/kernel/audit.c > +++ b/kernel/audit.c > @@ -388,9 +388,11 @@ static void kauditd_send_skb(struct sk_buff *skb) > err = netlink_unicast(audit_sock, skb, audit_nlk_portid, 0); > if (err < 0) { > BUG_ON(err != -ECONNREFUSED); /* Shouldn't happen */ > - printk(KERN_ERR "audit: *NO* daemon at audit_pid=%d\n", audit_pid); > - audit_log_lost("auditd disappeared\n"); > - audit_pid = 0; > + if (audit_pid) { > + printk(KERN_ERR "audit: *NO* daemon at audit_pid=%d\n", audit_pid); > + audit_log_lost("auditd disappeared\n"); > + audit_pid = 0; > + } > /* we might get lucky and get this in the next auditd */ > audit_hold_skb(skb); > } else > -- > 1.8.3.1 > > Is this ok? > > Thanks,