Re: [PATCH 0/6] audit: Fix various races when tagging and untagging mounts
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:14 AM Jan Kara <jack(a)suse.cz> wrote:
On Fri 29-06-18 14:01:44, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:44 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Jan Kara <jack(a)suse.cz> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > this series addresses the problems I have identified when trying to
understand
> > > how exactly is kernel/audit_tree.c using generic fsnotify framework. I
hope
> > > I have understood all the interactions right but careful review is
certainly
> > > welcome (CCing Al as he was the one implementing this code originally).
> > >
> > > The patches have been tested by a stress test I have written which mounts
&
> > > unmounts filesystems in the directory tree while adding and removing
audit
> > > rules for this tree in parallel and accessing the tree to generate
events.
> > > Still some real-world testing would be welcome.
> > >
> >
> > This sort of stress test sound really useful to fanotify/inotify as well.
> > Do plan to upstream that stress test?
>
> Agreed.
>
> I would be interested in having something like this in the
> audit-testsuite so that we can include it in our regular regression
> testing.
>
> * https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite
OK, I'll look into integrating the test script into audit testsuite.
Great, thank you.
Even if you don't get around to it, posting it somewhere could still
be helpful, e.g. I could use it to hammer on your patches too.
Speaking of which, thank you very much for doing this work; I know how
painful the audit code can be and I suspect this wasn't easy. I see
you've already got some feedback from Amir (thank you Amir!) and I'm
working my way through them too, but some vacation time is going to
make progress a bit slow.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com