[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307556823.2577.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:13:36 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
fenghua.yu@...el.com, monstr@...str.eu, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, linux390@...ibm.com,
lethal@...ux-sh.org, davem@...emloft.net, jdike@...toit.com,
richard@....at, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] Audit: push audit success and retcode into arch
ptrace.h
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 18:36 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/07, Eric Paris wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 19:19 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > With or without this patch, can't we call audit_syscall_exit() twice
> > > if there is something else in _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_EXIT mask apart from
> > > SYSCALL_AUDIT ? First time it is called from asm, then from
> > > syscall_trace_leave(), no?
> > >
> > > For example. The task has TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT and nothing else, it does
> > > system_call->auditsys->system_call_fastpath. What if it gets, say,
> > > TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE before ret_from_sys_call?
> >
> > No harm is done calling twice. The first call will do the real work and
> > cleanup. It will set a flag in the audit data that the work has been
> > done (in_syscall == 0) thus the second call will then not do any real
> > work and won't have anything to clean up.
>
> Hmm... and I assume context->previous != NULL is not possible on x86_64.
> OK, thanks.
>
> And I guess, all CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL code in entry.S is only needed to
> microoptimize the case when TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT is the only reason for the
> slow path. I wonder if it really makes the measureble difference...
All I know is what Roland put in the changelog:
Avoiding the iret return path when syscall audit is enabled helps
performance a lot.
I believe this was a result of Fedora starting auditd by default and
then Linus bitching about how slow a null syscall in a tight loop was.
It was an optimization for a microbenchmark. How much it affects things
on a real syscall that does real work is probably going to be determined
by how much work is done in the syscall. (or just disable auditd in
userspace)
-Eric
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists