Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:17:37 -0500 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] audit: don't needlessly reset valid wait time | From | Paul Moore <> |
| |
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote: > On 15/11/04, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Thursday, October 22, 2015 02:53:14 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: >> > After auditd has recovered from an overflowed queue, the first process >> > that doesn't use reserves to make it through the queue checks should >> > reset the audit backlog wait time to the configured value. After that, >> > there is no need to keep resetting it. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> >> > --- >> > kernel/audit.c | 2 +- >> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c >> > index a72ad37..daefd81 100644 >> > --- a/kernel/audit.c >> > +++ b/kernel/audit.c >> > @@ -1403,7 +1403,7 @@ struct audit_buffer *audit_log_start(struct >> > audit_context *ctx, gfp_t gfp_mask, return NULL; >> > } >> > >> > - if (!reserve) >> > + if (!reserve && !audit_backlog_wait_time) >> > audit_backlog_wait_time = audit_backlog_wait_time_master; >> > >> > ab = audit_buffer_alloc(ctx, gfp_mask, type); >> >> This looks fine to me, I'm going to add it to audit#next-queue. >> >> Also, can you think of a good reason why "audit_backlog_wait_overflow" exists? >> I'm going to replace it with the simple "audit_backlog_wait_time = 0;" unless >> you can think of a solid reason not to do so. It seems much more obvious and >> readable to me. > > That goes back to ac4cec44, DWMW, July 2005. Best answer I can come up > with is that it labels magic values and puts them up front at the top of > the file.
Yeah, I can see that from git blame, I was hoping for some thread I may have missed. Oh well, not terribly important.
> I'd suggest instead replacing it with a macro. I don't have > an significant objection to just assigning zero where you suggest.
If it weren't zero I would agree with you, magic numbers in general are a bit scary. However, in this particular case I don't consider zero to be a magic number and its use seems pretty clear given the context.
-- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
| |