linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/2] printk: add interface for disabling recursion check

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 28 May 2012 08:30:58 +0800
From:	Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	"Liu, ShuoX" <shuox.liu@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] printk: add interface for disabling recursion check

On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 16:09 +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> +void printk_recursion_check_enable(void)
> +{
> +	atomic_dec(&recursion_check_disabled);
> +}
> 
> 
> Is it worth a BUG_ON() in here to check that recursion_check_disabled
> is >=1 before blindly decrementing it? Or is this interface so simple
> that nobody would ever get this wrong?
Tony,

The interface is clear and simple. But a WARN_ON checking is better
to have. We would add WARN_ON.

Thanks,
Yanmin


--
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/