Message-ID: <20131024193532.GD4956@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Date:	Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:35:32 -0400
From:	Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To:	Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-audit@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Toshiyuki Okajima <toshi.okajima@...fujitsu.com>,
	eparis@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [BUG][PATCH] audit: audit_log_start running on auditd should not
 stop

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:55:37PM +0800, Gao feng wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 03:55 AM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:30:34PM +0800, Gao feng wrote:
> >> Hi Toshiyuki-san,
> > 
> > Toshiuki and Gao,
> > 
> >> On 10/15/2013 12:43 PM, Toshiyuki Okajima wrote:
> >>> The backlog cannot be consumed when audit_log_start is running on auditd
> >>> even if audit_log_start calls wait_for_auditd to consume it.
> >>> The situation is a deadlock because only auditd can consume the backlog.
> >>> If the other process needs to send the backlog, it can be also stopped 
> >>> by the deadlock.
> >>>
> >>> So, audit_log_start running on auditd should not stop.
> >>>
> >>> You can see the deadlock with the following reproducer:
> >>>  # auditctl -a exit,always -S all
> >>>  # reboot
> > 
> >> Hmm, I see, There may be other code paths that auditd can call audit_log_start except
> >> audit_log_config_change. so it's better to handle this problem in audit_log_start.
> >>
> >> but current task is only meaningful when gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT is true.
> >> so maybe the below patch is what you want.
> > 
> > I have been following this thread with interest.  I like the general
> > evolution of this patch.  The first patch was a bit too abrupt, dropping
> > too much, but this one makes much more sense.  I would be tempted to
> > make the reserve even bigger.
> > 
> > I see that you should be using a kernel that has included commit
> > 8ac1c8d5 (which made it into v3.12-rc3)
> > 	audit: fix endless wait in audit_log_start()
> > That was an obvious bug, 
> 
> include or not include?

You say you tested on v3.12-rc4, which does (should?) include this fix.

> The problem is, if the audit_backlog_limit is 3, but there are 5 tasks
> calling audit_log_start, so 2 tasks will wait auditd to consume
> audit_skb_queue. if before auditd consumes skbs, somebody want to kill
> auditd, and auditd will set the audit_pid to zero, this will triger an
> audit message. so auditd will wait for himself. and this waiting is endless,
> since auditd cann't consume audit_skb_queue any more.
> 
> the commit 8ac1c8d5 prevent this problem happening. because if once a task is
> blocked over the audit_backlog_wait_time. the audit_backlog_wait_time will
> be set to zero(audit_backlog_wait_overflow which is zero). so the other tasks
> will not wait anymore. but I'm confused if this is what we expected? these
> audit messages will lost once any task is blocked over audit_backlog_wait_time.

This is configurable.  The default is this behaviour, so that if there
is a problem with the audit subsystem, it will give a reasonable chance
for auditd to catch up, then give up, make noise in the syslog (and
configured colsoles) and then continue.  Other auditd configurations
allow the system to halt if this condition occurs.

There is another patch coming that will set that audit_backlog_wait_time
back to the original value once auditd has recovered.  It is not
upstream yet.

> So, AFAIK if commit 8ac1c8d5 exist, this patch is not necessary, but
> we still do something to fix the problem commit 8ac1c8d5 brings.

This is the condition in which I am interested.  Do you have a way to
clearly show this condition without your patch and a way to show it is
solved with your patch?  I'm looking for a clear reproducer.

> but I was still concerned about the cause of
> > the initial wait.  There are other fixes and ideas in the works that
> > should alleviate some of the pressure to make the service more usable.
> > 	https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/18/453
> > 
> > I have tested with and without this v3 patch and I don't see any
> > significant difference with the reproducer provided above.  I'm also
> > testing with a reproducer of the endless wait bug (readahead-collector).
> > 
> > What are your expected results?  What are your actual results in each
> > case?  How are they different?
> > 
> >> diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
> >> index 7b0e23a..10b4545 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/audit.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/audit.c
> >> @@ -1095,7 +1095,9 @@ struct audit_buffer *audit_log_start(struct audit_context
> >>         struct audit_buffer     *ab     = NULL;
> >>         struct timespec         t;
> >>         unsigned int            uninitialized_var(serial);
> >> -       int reserve;
> >> +       int reserve = 5; /* Allow atomic callers to go up to five
> >> +                           entries over the normal backlog limit */
> >> +
> >>         unsigned long timeout_start = jiffies;
> >>
> >>         if (audit_initialized != AUDIT_INITIALIZED)
> >> @@ -1104,11 +1106,12 @@ struct audit_buffer *audit_log_start(struct audit_contex
> >>         if (unlikely(audit_filter_type(type)))
> >>                 return NULL;
> >>
> >> -       if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT)
> >> -               reserve = 0;
> >> -       else
> >> -               reserve = 5; /* Allow atomic callers to go up to five
> >> -                               entries over the normal backlog limit */
> >> +       if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) {
> >> +               if (audit_pid && audit_pid == current->pid)
> >> +                       gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_WAIT;
> >> +               else
> >> +                       reserve = 0;
> >> +       }
> >>
> >>         while (audit_backlog_limit
> >>                && skb_queue_len(&audit_skb_queue) > audit_backlog_limit + reserv
> > 
> > - RGB

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@...hat.com>
Senior Software Engineer
Kernel Security
AMER ENG Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635
Internal: (81) 32635
Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
--
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