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.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> 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.