Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-10 Thread Eric Paris
On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 15:30 -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Paris > Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:52:02 -0500 > > > The second user Eric patched, audit_send_list(), can grow without bound. > > The number of skb's is going to be the size of the number of audit rules > > that root loaded. We r

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-10 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Paris Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:52:02 -0500 > The second user Eric patched, audit_send_list(), can grow without bound. > The number of skb's is going to be the size of the number of audit rules > that root loaded. We run the list of rules, generate an skb per rule, > and add all of th

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-07 Thread David Miller
From: Steve Grubb Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:27:28 -0500 > On Friday, March 07, 2014 07:48:01 PM David Miller wrote: >> From: Eric Paris >> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:52:02 -0500 >> >> > Audit is non-tolerant to failure and loss. >> >> Netlink is not a loss-less transport. > > Perhaps. But in a

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-07 Thread Eric Paris
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 19:48 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Paris > Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:52:02 -0500 > > > Audit is non-tolerant to failure and loss. > > Netlink is not a loss-less transport. I'm happy to accept that (and know it to be true). How can I better architect things? It

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-07 Thread Steve Grubb
On Friday, March 07, 2014 07:48:01 PM David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Paris > Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:52:02 -0500 > > > Audit is non-tolerant to failure and loss. > > Netlink is not a loss-less transport. Perhaps. But in all our testing over the years its been very good. -Steve -- To unsubs

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-07 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Paris Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:52:02 -0500 > Audit is non-tolerant to failure and loss. Netlink is not a loss-less transport. -- 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:

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-07 Thread Eric Paris
As usual Eric, your commentary is anything but useful. However your technical thoughts are not off the mark. Can we stick to those? On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 10:06 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Steve Grubb writes: > > > On Tuesday, March 04, 2014 07:21:52 PM David Miller wrote: > >> From: ebie

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-05 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Steve Grubb writes: > On Tuesday, March 04, 2014 07:21:52 PM David Miller wrote: >> From: ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) >> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:41:16 -0800 >> >> > If we really want the ability to always appened to the queue of skb's >> > is to just have a version of netlink_sen

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-05 Thread Steve Grubb
On Tuesday, March 04, 2014 07:21:52 PM David Miller wrote: > From: ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) > Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:41:16 -0800 > > > If we really want the ability to always appened to the queue of skb's > > is to just have a version of netlink_send_skb that ignores the queued

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-04 Thread David Miller
From: ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:41:16 -0800 > If we really want the ability to always appened to the queue of skb's > is to just have a version of netlink_send_skb that ignores the queued > limits. Of course an evil program then could force the generation

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:41:16 -0800 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > David Miller writes: > > > From: Andrew Morton > > Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 13:30:04 -0800 > > > >> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:50:19 -0800 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. > >> Biederman) wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Mo

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-04 Thread Eric W. Biederman
David Miller writes: > From: Andrew Morton > Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 13:30:04 -0800 > >> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:50:19 -0800 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Modify audit_send_reply to directly use a non-blocking send and >>> to return an error on failure (if anyone

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-04 Thread David Miller
From: Andrew Morton Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 13:30:04 -0800 > On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:50:19 -0800 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) > wrote: > >> >> Modify audit_send_reply to directly use a non-blocking send and >> to return an error on failure (if anyone cares). >> >> Modify audit_list_

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-03-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:50:19 -0800 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > > Modify audit_send_reply to directly use a non-blocking send and > to return an error on failure (if anyone cares). > > Modify audit_list_rules_send to use audit_send_reply and give up > if we can not send a

[RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

2014-02-28 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Modify audit_send_reply to directly use a non-blocking send and to return an error on failure (if anyone cares). Modify audit_list_rules_send to use audit_send_reply and give up if we can not send a packet. Merge audit_list_rules into iaudit_list_rules_send as the code is now sufficiently simple