Re: [PATCH V1] audit: add warning that an old auditd may be starved out by a new auditd

[Richard Guy Briggs]

On 15/09/14, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 12:08:19 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 15/09/11, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > Although I suppose if nothing else we could send a record indicating
> > > that another auditd attempted to replace it ... if we can send it
> > > great, drop the new request and be glad we audited it, if we can't
> > > send it, reset the auditd tracking.
> > 
> > This is actually a good idea.
> 
> This would go well with your last patch to try harder on netlink send 
> failures.

Re-looking at the AUDIT_STATUS_PID case, I'm noticing we only
audit_log_config_change() on success.  At the moment, auditd userspace
doesn't know about this new AUDIT_PING netlink message type I'm adding
for testing the health of the existing audit, so it will just be dropped
by existing auditd.  I think it makes sense to add
audit_log_config_change() on both the orphaning and starving cases
indicating the result=0 so that there is a record.  Arguably the
orphaning case can never happen again since the starving fix will
prevent a newer auditd from running.

>  On a related note, with the merge window closed I just rotated the 
> audit tree so that patch is now in linux-audit#next.

Thanks.

> paul moore

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@xxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/