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  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:	Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:53:45 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] jbd2/journal_commit_transaction: relocate state lock
 to incorporate all users

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 01:38:24PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> +#if defined(CONFIG_JBD_DEBUG) || defined(CONFIG_JBD2_DEBUG)
> +static inline void __jbd_debug(int level, const char *file, const char *func,
> +			       unsigned int line, const char *fmt, ...)
> +{
> +	struct va_format vaf;
> +	va_list args;
> +
> +	if (level > JOURNAL_ENABLE_DEBUG)
> +		return;
> +	va_start(args, fmt);
> +	vaf.fmt = fmt;
> + = &args;
> +	printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: (%s, %u): %pV\n", file, func, line, &vaf);
> +	va_end(args);
> +}
> +#endif

What's the difference in the overall size of jbd.ko and jbd2.ko using
an inline __jbd_debug compared with one where the __jbd_debug is
defined as a function in fs/jbd2/journal.c (or fs/jbd/journal.c; that
will be the problem trying to solve this problem for jbd and jbd2 at
the same time)?

If gcc was competent at optimizing inline functions with varargs, this
might be fine.  But I'm a bit concerned whether this might cause a lot
of bloat if CONFIG_JBD2_DEBUG is enabled.  It would be nice if the
impact was small enough that people were willing to enable so it's
available when we want to do debuggin.


					- Ted
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists