[PATCH 0/6] audit: Fix various races when tagging and untagging mounts

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:14 AM Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> wrote:
> On Fri 29-06-18 14:01:44, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:44 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > this series addresses the 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 (CCing Al as he was the one implementing this code originally).
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This sort of stress test sound really useful to fanotify/inotify as well.
> > > Do plan to upstream that stress test?
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > I would be interested in having something like this in the
> > audit-testsuite so that we can include it in our regular regression
> > testing.
> >
> > * https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite
>
> OK, I'll look into integrating the test script into audit testsuite.

Great, thank you.

Even if you don't get around to it, posting it somewhere could still
be helpful, e.g. I could use it to hammer on your patches too.
Speaking of which, thank you very much for doing this work; I know how
painful the audit code can be and I suspect this wasn't easy.  I see
you've already got some feedback from Amir (thank you Amir!) and I'm
working my way through them too, but some vacation time is going to
make progress a bit slow.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com