Re: Boot regression caused by kauditd

[Paul Moore]

In that case please send a proper inline patch to the audit mailing list
and we'll review it.

Thanks.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com



On April 27, 2017 7:41:45 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks for the report, this is the only one like it that I've seen.
>>>>>> I'm looking at the code in Linus' tree and I'm not seeing anything
>>>>>> obvious ... looking at the trace above it appears that the problem is
>>>>>> when get_net() goes to bump the refcount and the passed net pointer is
>>>>>> NULL; unless I'm missing something, the only way this would happen in
>>>>>> kauditd_thread() is if the auditd_conn.pid value is non-zero but the
>>>>>> auditd_conn.net pointer is NULL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That shouldn't happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the code that reads/writes the global auditd_conn,
>>>>> I don't see how it even works with RCU+spinlock, RCU plays
>>>>> with pointers and you have to make a copy as its name implies.
>>>>> But it looks like you simply use RCU+spinlock as a traditional
>>>>> rwlock, it doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>> The attached patch seems working for me, I tried to boot my
>>>> VM for 4 times, so far no crash or warning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or even better, save a memory allocation for reset path...
>>
>> I need to step away from my laptop for the evening so I can't give
>> this a proper review until tomorrow (sending patches as attachments
>> makes it difficult to review), but on quick glance I did notice a few
>> small things I would like to see changed.  However, since there is no
>> normal commit description and sign-off, I'm guessing you sent these
>> out as a suggestion and not a proper patch submission, yes/no?  If
>> that's the case, I'll work up a proper fix tomorrow and share it with
>> you for comment/review, but if you were planning on sending a proper
>> patch let me know and I'll wait until I see something in my inbox from
>> you.
>
> I want you to give it sanity check before I submit a formal one. ;)
> If you don't reject it, I will send a formal one with description and SoB.
>
> Thanks.