On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 2016-12-08 22:57, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > I also tried to extend Cong Wang's idea to attempt to proactively respond to a
>>> > NETLINK_URELEASE on the audit_sock and reset it, but ran into a locking error
>>> > stack dump using mutex_lock(&audit_cmd_mutex) in the notifier callback.
>>> > Eliminating the lock since the sock is dead anways eliminates the error.
>>> >
>>> > Is it safe?  I'll resubmit if this looks remotely sane.  Meanwhile I'll try to
>>> > get the test case to compile.
>>>
>>> It doesn't look safe, because 'audit_sock', 'audit_nlk_portid' and 'audit_pid'
>>> are updated as a whole and race between audit_receive_msg() and
>>> NETLINK_URELEASE.
>>
>> This is what I expected and why I originally added the mutex lock in the
>> callback...  The dumps I got were bare with no wrapper identifying the
>> process context or specific error, so I'm at a bit of a loss how to
>> solve this (without thinking more about it) other than instinctively
>> removing the mutex.
>
> Netlink notifier can safely be converted to blocking one, I will send
> a patch.
>
> But I seriously doubt you really need NETLINK_URELEASE here,
> it adds nothing but overhead, b/c the netlink notifier is called on
> every netlink socket in the system, but for net exit path, that is
> relatively a slow path.
>
> Also, kauditd_send_skb() needs audit_cmd_mutex too.

Please let me know what you think about the attached patch?

Thanks!