Re: [PATCH v2] audit: report audit wait metric in audit status reply

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:52 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hello Paul, Steve. > On Thursday, July 2, 2020 4:42:13 PM EST Paul Moore wrote: > > > #define AUDIT_FEATURE_BITMAP_BACKLOG_LIMIT 0x00000001 > > > #define AUDIT_FEATURE_BITMAP_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME 0x00000002 > > > @@ -348,6 +349,7 @@ enum { > > > #define AUDIT_FEATURE_BITMAP_SESSIONID_FILTER 0x00000010 > > > #define AUDIT_FEATURE_BITMAP_LOST_RESET 0x00000020 > > > #define AUDIT_FEATURE_BITMAP_FILTER_FS 0x00000040 > > > +#define AUDIT_FEATURE_BITMAP_BACKLOG_WAIT_SUM 0x00000080 > > > > In an effort not to exhaust the feature bitmap too quickly, I've been > > restricting it to only those features that would cause breakage with > > userspace. I haven't looked closely at Steve's userspace in quite a > > while, but I'm guessing it can key off the structure size and doesn't > > need this entry in the bitmap, right? Let me rephrase, if userspace > > needs to key off anything, it *should* key off the structure size and > > not a new flag in the bitmask > > > > Also, I'm assuming that older userspace doesn't blow-up if it sees the > > larger structure size? That's even more important. > > We need this FEATURE_BITMAP to do anything in userspace. Max's instinct was > right. Anything that changes the user space API needs to have a > FEATURE_BITMAP so that user space can do the right thing. The lack of this is > blocking acceptance of the pull request for the user space piece. I don't believe you need a new bitmap entry in this case, you should be able to examine the size of the reply from the AUDIT_GET request and make a determination from there.

paul moore