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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 08 Mar 2014 01:34:51 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	sgrubb@...hat.com
Cc:	eparis@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, rgb@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-audit@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket
 buffer is large enough

From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:27:28 -0500

> On Friday, March 07, 2014 07:48:01 PM David Miller wrote:
>> From: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
>> 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.

What I really meant by that was that there is flow control.

You can push as much data reliably over it as you want, but you have
to block when the socket limits are hit.

And I'd say you might as well make the creator of the event do the
blocking rather than making other threads do this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/