On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 16:49 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 04:33:25PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 15:06 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > reaahead-collector abuses the audit logging facility to discover which
> > > files
> > > are accessed at boot time to make a pre-load list
> > >
> > > Add a tuning option to audit_backlog_wait_time so that if auditd can't
> > > keep up,
> > > or gets blocked, the callers won't be blocked.
>
> > > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
> > > index 3d17670..fc535b6 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/audit.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/audit.c
> > > @@ -701,8 +708,21 @@ static int audit_receive_msg(struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > struct nlmsghdr *nlh)
> > > if (err < 0)
> > > return err;
> > > }
> > > - if (s.mask & AUDIT_STATUS_BACKLOG_LIMIT)
> > > + if (s.mask & AUDIT_STATUS_BACKLOG_LIMIT) {
> > > err = audit_set_backlog_limit(s.backlog_limit);
> > > + if (err < 0)
> > > + return err;
> > > + }
> > > + if (s.mask & AUDIT_STATUS_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME) {
> > > + if (sizeof(s) > (size_t)nlh->nlmsg_len)
> > > + break;
> >
> > What gets returned here? I think err has a value of 0, but it doesn't
> > seem to have been clearly intentional. If they know about the
> > AUDIT_STATUS_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME flag, but they didn't send a long enough
> > skb? That seems like an error condition....
>
> The intent was that it is a NOP, since err would have a value of zero,
> but I see your point, that if that flag is present, the struct member
> should be too. My original intent was that if the structure member
> wasn't present, it would default to zero, unintentionally setting the
> wait time to zero. It was part of my paranoia in the absence of an API
> version indicator. No harm done, but I agree it should return an error.
>
> Thanks for the catch.
>
> > > + if (s.backlog_wait_time < 0 ||
> > > + s.backlog_wait_time > 10*AUDIT_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
>
> I assume values less than zero or larger than 10 times the current
> default of one minute are errors or unreasonable.
>
> Any argument for more than 10 minutes?
10 Minutes already seems nuts. If someone has a reason to go higher, we
can change this sanity check then.
-Eric
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
