Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:54:02 -0400 | From | Luiz Capitulino <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] audit: avoid soft lockup in audit_log_start() |
| |
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:28:42 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:03:25 -0400 Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > --- a/kernel/audit.c > > > +++ b/kernel/audit.c > > > @@ -1215,9 +1215,10 @@ struct audit_buffer *audit_log_start(struct audit_context *ctx, gfp_t gfp_mask, > > > > > > sleep_time = timeout_start + audit_backlog_wait_time - > > > jiffies; > > > - if ((long)sleep_time > 0) > > > + if ((long)sleep_time > 0) { > > > wait_for_auditd(sleep_time); > > > - continue; > > > + continue; > > > + } > > > } > > > if (audit_rate_check() && printk_ratelimit()) > > > printk(KERN_WARNING > > > > I think this is the right(ish) fix, at least it gets at the real bug. > > 829199197a430dade2519d54f5545c4a094393b8 definitely is the problem. > > um, which idiot wrote that?
LOL!
> Thngs are somewhat foggy at present. I have two patches from > Dan/Chuck: > > Subject: audit: fix soft lockups due to loop in audit_log_start() wh,en audit_backlog_limit exceeded > Subject: audit: two efficiency fixes for audit mechanism > > and two from Luiz: > > Subject: audit: flush_hold_queue(): don't drop queued SKBs > Subject: audit: kaudit_send_skb(): make non-blocking call to netlink_unicast() > > and now a protopatch from Konstantin which eparis likes. > > So, umm, guys, can you please devote a bit of time to working out what > we should do here?
You can drop my patches. Konstantin's patch is a better version of my first RFC. My second series is kind of a new concept which the audit team seems to disagree with, and I won't push hard on it.
| |