lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] audit: refactor queue full checks
    Date


    > On May 10, 2023, at 15:54, Rinat Gadelshin <rgadelsh@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > Hi Eiichi!
    >
    > Just one one for your patch.
    >
    > On 08.05.2023 10:58, Eiichi Tsukata wrote:
    >> Currently audit queue full checks are done in multiple places.
    >> Consolidate them into one audit_queue_full().
    >>
    >> Signed-off-by: Eiichi Tsukata <eiichi.tsukata@nutanix.com>
    >> ---
    >> kernel/audit.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
    >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
    >>
    >> diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
    >> index 9bc0b0301198..c15694e1a76b 100644
    >> --- a/kernel/audit.c
    >> +++ b/kernel/audit.c
    >> @@ -341,6 +341,12 @@ static inline int audit_rate_check(void)
    >> return retval;
    >> }
    >> +static inline int audit_queue_full(const struct sk_buff_head *queue)
    >> +{
    >> + return audit_backlog_limit &&
    >> + (skb_queue_len(queue) > audit_backlog_limit);
    > It seems that we should use `>=` here.

    Hi Rinat

    Could you provide the detailed reason?

    Currently queue full checks are done with ‘>’,
    on the other hand queue NOT full checks are done with ‘<‘.

    Looking into other similar checks in the kernel, unix_recvq_full() is using ‘>’.


    Paul, how do you think about it?

    Eiichi


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-05-10 09:18    [W:3.408 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site