| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:38:08 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: printk() vs tty_io On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 15:52 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > > > I've been poking at reducing the constraints on printk(), like make it > > work under rq->lock etc.. > > You aren't supposed register a console that wakes things up. But the > only console that honors that afaik is the traditional vt console. > *Maybe* the network console, I didn't check. > > I *assume* you only get this lockdep warning if you have a serial console? I only ever use serial, I'll try and have a go at reproducing any of this on a machine that actually has a screen attached. Anyway, would it make any sense to start enforcing this 'rule'? Can we reasonably make the serial stuff not wake things? Let alone the fbdev/ksm consoles that seem popular these days. Thing is, if everybody and their dog are using ksm, and we cannot make ksm console wake-free, there's a very limited point to my endeavor to make printk() work under rq->lock etc.. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists