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 <rbri...@redhat.com> 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 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/
