Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 2 Apr 2019 11:06:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
cc:     Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>,
        Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>,
        Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH ghak10 v6 1/2] timekeeping: Audit clock adjustments
In-Reply-To: <CAFqZXNtHxt6Huv2ufU-gp-0Y4WfyQSJkYVS0cmd0o+G=D1A-UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904021104440.1676@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20190307123254.348-1-omosnace@redhat.com> <20190307123254.348-2-omosnace@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903280020390.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <CAFqZXNtHxt6Huv2ufU-gp-0Y4WfyQSJkYVS0cmd0o+G=D1A-UQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 1:09 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(do_settimeofday64);
> > > @@ -2322,6 +2326,8 @@ int do_adjtimex(struct timex *txc)
> > >               ret = timekeeping_inject_offset(&delta);
> > >               if (ret)
> > >                       return ret;
> > > +
> > > +             audit_tk_injoffset(delta);
> > >       }
> > >
> > >       ktime_get_real_ts64(&ts);
> >
> > This can be done at the end of do_adjtimex() quite nicely in preemptible
> > context.
> 
> But wait, isn't this call outside of the critical section as well? (I
> must have been moving the call around when I was writing the code and
> didn't realize that this function actually doesn't need GFP_ATOMIC at
> all...) Or am I missing something?

Nah. I was misreading it. Just it does not need GFP_ATOMIC at all. But then
you might just combine it with your new struct storage which you want to do
for __do_adjtimex() anyway.

Thanks,

	tglx