Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1262717 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] audit: don't needlessly reset valid wait time

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] audit: don't needlessly reset valid wait time Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> - 2015-11-05 00:10 +0100
    Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] audit: don't needlessly reset valid wait time Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> - 2015-11-05 04:20 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] audit: don't needlessly reset valid wait time Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> - 2015-11-05 16:20 +0100

#1262717 — Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] audit: don't needlessly reset valid wait time

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 02:53:14 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> After auditd has recovered from an overflowed queue, the first process
> that doesn't use reserves to make it through the queue checks should
> reset the audit backlog wait time to the configured value.  After that,
> there is no need to keep resetting it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
> ---
>  kernel/audit.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
> index a72ad37..daefd81 100644
> --- a/kernel/audit.c
> +++ b/kernel/audit.c
> @@ -1403,7 +1403,7 @@ struct audit_buffer *audit_log_start(struct
> audit_context *ctx, gfp_t gfp_mask, return NULL;
>  	}
> 
> -	if (!reserve)
> +	if (!reserve && !audit_backlog_wait_time)
>  		audit_backlog_wait_time = audit_backlog_wait_time_master;
> 
>  	ab = audit_buffer_alloc(ctx, gfp_mask, type);

This looks fine to me, I'm going to add it to audit#next-queue.

Also, can you think of a good reason why "audit_backlog_wait_overflow" exists?  
I'm going to replace it with the simple "audit_backlog_wait_time = 0;" unless 
you can think of a solid reason not to do so.  It seems much more obvious and 
readable to me.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1262869

On 15/11/04, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2015 02:53:14 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > After auditd has recovered from an overflowed queue, the first process
> > that doesn't use reserves to make it through the queue checks should
> > reset the audit backlog wait time to the configured value.  After that,
> > there is no need to keep resetting it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/audit.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
> > index a72ad37..daefd81 100644
> > --- a/kernel/audit.c
> > +++ b/kernel/audit.c
> > @@ -1403,7 +1403,7 @@ struct audit_buffer *audit_log_start(struct
> > audit_context *ctx, gfp_t gfp_mask, return NULL;
> >  	}
> > 
> > -	if (!reserve)
> > +	if (!reserve && !audit_backlog_wait_time)
> >  		audit_backlog_wait_time = audit_backlog_wait_time_master;
> > 
> >  	ab = audit_buffer_alloc(ctx, gfp_mask, type);
> 
> This looks fine to me, I'm going to add it to audit#next-queue.
> 
> Also, can you think of a good reason why "audit_backlog_wait_overflow" exists?  
> I'm going to replace it with the simple "audit_backlog_wait_time = 0;" unless 
> you can think of a solid reason not to do so.  It seems much more obvious and 
> readable to me.

That goes back to ac4cec44, DWMW, July 2005.  Best answer I can come up
with is that it labels magic values and puts them up front at the top of
the file.  I'd suggest instead replacing it with a macro.  I don't have
an significant objection to just assigning zero where you suggest.

> paul moore

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@redhat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1263321

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 15/11/04, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 22, 2015 02:53:14 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>> > After auditd has recovered from an overflowed queue, the first process
>> > that doesn't use reserves to make it through the queue checks should
>> > reset the audit backlog wait time to the configured value.  After that,
>> > there is no need to keep resetting it.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> >  kernel/audit.c |    2 +-
>> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
>> > index a72ad37..daefd81 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/audit.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/audit.c
>> > @@ -1403,7 +1403,7 @@ struct audit_buffer *audit_log_start(struct
>> > audit_context *ctx, gfp_t gfp_mask, return NULL;
>> >     }
>> >
>> > -   if (!reserve)
>> > +   if (!reserve && !audit_backlog_wait_time)
>> >             audit_backlog_wait_time = audit_backlog_wait_time_master;
>> >
>> >     ab = audit_buffer_alloc(ctx, gfp_mask, type);
>>
>> This looks fine to me, I'm going to add it to audit#next-queue.
>>
>> Also, can you think of a good reason why "audit_backlog_wait_overflow" exists?
>> I'm going to replace it with the simple "audit_backlog_wait_time = 0;" unless
>> you can think of a solid reason not to do so.  It seems much more obvious and
>> readable to me.
>
> That goes back to ac4cec44, DWMW, July 2005.  Best answer I can come up
> with is that it labels magic values and puts them up front at the top of
> the file.

Yeah, I can see that from git blame, I was hoping for some thread I
may have missed.  Oh well, not terribly important.

> I'd suggest instead replacing it with a macro.  I don't have
> an significant objection to just assigning zero where you suggest.

If it weren't zero I would agree with you, magic numbers in general
are a bit scary.  However, in this particular case I don't consider
zero to be a magic number and its use seems pretty clear given the
context.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web