On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:28:42 -0700
Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:03:25 -0400 Eric Paris <epa...@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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
