| Message ID | 20180904160632.21210-1-jack@suse.cz (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | audit: Fix various races when tagging and untagging mounts | expand |
On 2018-09-04 18:06, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, Jan, > this is the third revision of the series that addresses problems I have > identified when trying to understand how exactly is kernel/audit_tree.c using > generic fsnotify framework. I hope I have understood all the interactions right > but careful review is certainly welcome. I've tried to review it as carefully as I am able. As best I understand it, this all looks reasonable and an improvement over the previous state. Thanks for the hard work. FWIW, Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> > The patches have been tested by a stress test I have written which mounts & > unmounts filesystems in the directory tree while adding and removing audit > rules for this tree in parallel and accessing the tree to generate events. > Still some real-world testing would be welcome. > > Changes since v2: > * Fixed up mark freeing to use proper pointer as pointed out by Amir > * Changed some naming based on Paul's review > > Changes since v1: > * Split the last patch to ease review > * Rewrite test script so that it can be included in audit testsuite > * Some cleanups and improvements suggested by Amir > > Honza - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
On Fri 14-09-18 15:13:28, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 2018-09-04 18:06, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hello, > > Jan, > > > this is the third revision of the series that addresses problems I have > > identified when trying to understand how exactly is kernel/audit_tree.c using > > generic fsnotify framework. I hope I have understood all the interactions right > > but careful review is certainly welcome. > > I've tried to review it as carefully as I am able. As best I understand > it, this all looks reasonable and an improvement over the previous > state. Thanks for the hard work. > > FWIW, > Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> Thanks for review! Paul should I send you updated patch 9 with that one variable renamed or will you do that small change while merging the series? Honza
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:57 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > On Fri 14-09-18 15:13:28, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 2018-09-04 18:06, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Jan, > > > > > this is the third revision of the series that addresses problems I have > > > identified when trying to understand how exactly is kernel/audit_tree.c using > > > generic fsnotify framework. I hope I have understood all the interactions right > > > but careful review is certainly welcome. > > > > I've tried to review it as carefully as I am able. As best I understand > > it, this all looks reasonable and an improvement over the previous > > state. Thanks for the hard work. > > > > FWIW, > > Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> > > Thanks for review! Paul should I send you updated patch 9 with that one > variable renamed or will you do that small change while merging the series? Hi Jan, Thanks again for these patches and your patience; some travel, holidays, and a job change delayed my review. However, everything looks okay to me (minus the one problem I noted in patch 09/11). I've added the patches to audit/working-fsnotify_fixes and I'm going to start stressing them as soon as I get a test kernel built with the idea of merging them into audit/next as soon as the upcoming merge window closes. As far as the variable rename is concerned, that's not something I would prefer to change during a merge, but if you or Richard wanted to submit a renaming patch I would be okay with that in this case. If you do submit the rename patch, please base it on top of this patchset (or audit/working-fsnotify_fixes). Thanks!
On Wed 03-10-18 21:20:35, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:57 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > On Fri 14-09-18 15:13:28, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > On 2018-09-04 18:06, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Jan, > > > > > > > this is the third revision of the series that addresses problems I have > > > > identified when trying to understand how exactly is kernel/audit_tree.c using > > > > generic fsnotify framework. I hope I have understood all the interactions right > > > > but careful review is certainly welcome. > > > > > > I've tried to review it as carefully as I am able. As best I understand > > > it, this all looks reasonable and an improvement over the previous > > > state. Thanks for the hard work. > > > > > > FWIW, > > > Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> > > > > Thanks for review! Paul should I send you updated patch 9 with that one > > variable renamed or will you do that small change while merging the series? > > Hi Jan, > > Thanks again for these patches and your patience; some travel, > holidays, and a job change delayed my review. However, everything > looks okay to me (minus the one problem I noted in patch 09/11). I've > added the patches to audit/working-fsnotify_fixes and I'm going to > start stressing them as soon as I get a test kernel built with the > idea of merging them into audit/next as soon as the upcoming merge > window closes. > > As far as the variable rename is concerned, that's not something I > would prefer to change during a merge, but if you or Richard wanted to > submit a renaming patch I would be okay with that in this case. If > you do submit the rename patch, please base it on top of this patchset > (or audit/working-fsnotify_fixes). Great, thanks. I will send the rename patch in a moment. Honza