On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 6:04 AM Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu 11-10-18 19:03:53, Paul Moore wrote: > > On October 11, 2018 7:39:39 AM Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed 10-10-18 02:43:46, Paul Moore wrote: > > >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:40 AM Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> On Fri 05-10-18 17:06:22, Paul Moore wrote: > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:06 PM Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> Add stress test for stressing audit tree watches by adding and > > >>>>> deleting > > >>>>> rules while events are generated and watched filesystems are mounted > > >>>>> and > > >>>>> unmounted in parallel. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]> > > >>>>> --- > > >>>>> tests/stress_tree/Makefile | 8 +++ > > >>>>> tests/stress_tree/test | 171 > > >>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >>>>> 2 files changed, 179 insertions(+) > > >>>>> create mode 100644 tests/stress_tree/Makefile > > >>>>> create mode 100755 tests/stress_tree/test > > >>>> > > >>>> No commentary on the test itself, other than perhaps it should live > > >>>> under test_manual/, but in running the tests in a loop today I am > > >>>> reliably able to panic my test kernel after ~30m or so. > > >>> > > >>> Interesting. How do you run the test? > > >> > > >> Nothing fancy, just a simple bash loop: > > >> > > >> # cd tests/stress_tree > > >> # while ./test; do /bin/true; done > > > > > > OK, I did succeed in reproducing some problems with my patches - once I > > > was > > > able to trigger a livelock and following softlockup warning - this is > > > actually a problem introduced by my patches, and once a use after free > > > issue (not sure what that was since after I've added some debugging I > > > wasn't able to trigger it anymore). Anyway, I'll try more after fixing the > > > livelock. Do you want me to add fixes on top of my series or just fixup > > > the > > > original series? > > > > Since these are pretty serious bugs, and I try to avoid merging > > known-broken patches which will go up to Linus, why don't you go ahead > > and respin the patchset with the new fixes included. You can also use > > the opportunity to squash in the rename patch and fix that mid-patchset > > compilation problem that I fixed up during the merge. > > OK, I'm now testing a version with the softlockup fixed and some locking > around untag_chunk() simplified when I had to meddle with that anyway. I'll > see if I can hit further failures...
Thanks for the update, let me know how the testing goes ... -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
