[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH V1] audit: add warning that an old auditd may be starved out by a new auditd
On Monday, September 07, 2015 12:58:18 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/09/07, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > Nothing prevents a new auditd starting up and replacing a valid
> > audit_pid when an old auditd is still running, effectively starving out
> > the old auditd since audit_pid no longer points to the old valid auditd.
> >
> > There isn't an easy way to detect if an old auditd is still running on
> > the existing audit_pid other than attempting to send a message to see if
> > it fails. If no message to auditd has been attempted since auditd died
> > unnaturally or got killed, audit_pid will still indicate it is alive.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <>
> Ok, self-nack on this one for a couple of problems...
> netlink_getsockbyportid() is static to af_netlink.c and "pid" should be
> task_tgid_vnr(current). Otherwise, any opinions on this approach?
> > ---
> > Note: Would it be too bold to actually block the registration of a new
> > auditd if the netlink_getsockbyportid() call succeeded? Would other
> > checks be appropriate?

Hmm. It seems like we should prevent the registration of a new auditd if we
already have an auditd instance connected, although as you say, that isn't the
easiest thing to do.

How painful would it be to return -EAGAIN to the new auditd while sending some
sort of keep-alive/ping/etc. message to the old daemon to check its status?

paul moore
security @ redhat

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-09 23:01    [W:0.125 / U:1.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site