Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:41:29 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 210479] blacklistd(8) and sshd(8) causes login delays and syslog(8) spam
Message-ID:  <bug-210479-8-lYknhTPtt4@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-210479-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-210479-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D210479

--- Comment #3 from Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to lidl from comment #2)
> The debug logging is expected.
>=20

I think this makes auditdistd(8) unhappy.

> I'm unclear by your comment about delays - delays due to the error state,=
 or
> delay due to the extra syslog statements.
>=20
> In timing of a simple 'ssh hostname df \> /dev/null', I get the same
> wall-clock time, regardless of blacklistd running on the remote host.
> (I do see the debug messages in the debug.log on the remote host.)
>=20
> Can you quantify the delays you're seeing?

Between head and stable/10, I see an increase in responsiveness.
 gjb@nucleus:~ % time ssh ref10-amd64.freebsd.org exit
 0.010u 0.010s 0:01.14 1.7%      192+148k 4+0io 0pf+0w

 gjb@nucleus:~ % time ssh ref11-amd64.freebsd.org exit
 0.020u 0.000s 0:01.55 1.2%      96+74k 4+1io 0pf+0w

The only "known" difference is the addition of blacklistd(8).

In either case, I think the debug.log spam is a bit overkill, especially for
machines without large /var directories (embedded systems, etc.).

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-210479-8-lYknhTPtt4>