From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To: LC Bruzenak <lenny@magitekltd.com>
Cc: Linux Audit <linux-audit@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Near Term Audit Road Map
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:56:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200902271156.55861.sgrubb@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1235751224.7212.24.camel@homeserver>
On Friday 27 February 2009 11:13:44 am LC Bruzenak wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 10:33 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > During the work for a 2.2 release, I would also like to pull the
> > audispd program inside auditd. In the past, I tried to keep auditd
> > lean and single purpose, but with adding remote logging and kerberos
> > support, we already have something that is hard to analyze. So, to
> > improve performance and decrease system load, the audit daemon will
> > also do event dispatching.
>
> Couple questions:
> Do you see that pulling in the dispatching will cause more auditd complexity
> or is that not a problem?
The current chain is:
kernel->auditd->audispd->audisp-prelude
What it would become is
kernel->auditd->audisp-prelude
> I thought that (one reason) audispd was separate was to allow it to deal
> with the vagaries of endpoint and delivery issues while the auditd kept
> doing its thing.
Sort of. It was mostly to do the demultiplexing, but in reality, people windup
getting queue overflows between auditd and audispd.
> - In theory, if everything is still doing roughly the same amount of
> work, I'd think that moving the functionality would not necessarily
> decrease the system load.
The problem is auditd gets backed up trying to send to audispd. Audispd rarely
gets backed up and when it does you can increase the queue. But you can't do
this between the audit daemon and dispatcher. Then auditd backs up the kernel
queue.
> - What do you see as the initial target platform for the 2.0 series in
> Fedora?
Either 11 or 12 depending on when I can get it done and pushed through.
> In RH I assume it would be the next RH release thereafter?
Yes, it would aimed at RHEL6, with the 1.8 series becoming RHEL5 only.
-Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-27 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-27 15:33 Near Term Audit Road Map Steve Grubb
2009-02-27 16:13 ` LC Bruzenak
2009-02-27 16:23 ` LC Bruzenak
2009-02-27 16:56 ` Steve Grubb [this message]
2009-03-24 16:29 ` audisp-remote and audisp-prelude question LC Bruzenak
2009-03-24 16:41 ` Steve Grubb
2009-03-24 16:55 ` Sebastien Tricaud
2009-03-24 17:30 ` LC Bruzenak
2009-03-24 17:06 ` Steve Grubb
2009-03-24 18:01 ` LC Bruzenak
2009-03-24 18:13 ` Steve Grubb
2009-02-27 20:59 ` Near Term Audit Road Map Matthew Booth
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200902271156.55861.sgrubb@redhat.com \
--to=sgrubb@redhat.com \
--cc=lenny@magitekltd.com \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox