From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031409AbbKDXDx (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:03:53 -0500 Received: from mail-qg0-f45.google.com ([209.85.192.45]:33077 "EHLO mail-qg0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030473AbbKDXDv (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:03:51 -0500 From: Paul Moore To: Richard Guy Briggs Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, v.rathor@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] audit: don't needlessly reset valid wait time Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 18:03:49 -0500 Message-ID: <1597895.v7jZTs1jqP@sifl> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.2.3-gentoo; KDE/4.14.13; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <2b43c5d14e97945ea743f2e93e766834c93404fd.1445539473.git.rgb@redhat.com> References: <2b43c5d14e97945ea743f2e93e766834c93404fd.1445539473.git.rgb@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > --- > 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