linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] printk: increase devkmsg write() ratelimit

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:   Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:46:57 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] printk: increase devkmsg write() ratelimit

On (12/18/18 18:47), Borislav Petkov wrote:
> So how much is not strict?
>
> And what happens if you raise that ratelimiting level and the *one* line
> which is most important for debugging an issue

Like you said, for debugging devkmsg=off works just fine. I don't mind
the ratelimiting and want to keep it; I just don't want errors to be
ratelimited.

> All I'm saying is, gradually raising the limit is the wrong approach
> - there will always be a case where something important doesn't get
> logged.

Well, OK.

> What we need is a different solution, maybe what Rostedt proposes or
> so...

Sure, a different approach and idea are welcome. This is RFC thread.

	-ss