linux-kernel - Re: early_printk accessing __log

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]

Message-Id: <20070723140541.8fac78c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:05:41 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc:	"Robin Getz" <rgetz@...ckfin.uclinux.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Greg Ungerer" <gerg@...pgear.com>,
	"Russell King" <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	"Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	"Tim Bird" <tim.bird@...sony.com>, bryan.wu@...log.com
Subject: Re: early_printk accessing __log_buf

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:54:36 -0400
"Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@...il.com> wrote:

> On 7/23/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:19:12 -0400
> > Robin Getz <rgetz@...ckfin.uclinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun 22 Jul 2007 19:50, Mike Frysinger pondered:
> > > >
> > > > i think the attached two functions account for what Robin and Andrew
> > > > were thinking ...
> > >
> > > A note about why/when grab_lock would be set to zero (pre-kernel init, or
> > > OOPs) might be nice.
> >
> > Definitely.
> >
> > The pre-kernel init shouldn't be an issue: logbuf_lock is initialised at
> > compile time.
> >
> > At oops time we could possibly use oops_in_progress to work out whether to
> > avoid taking the lock.  That's not terribly nice, but nor is it nice for
> > callers to know about printk internals.
> 
> maybe, but for early debug users (the reason we wanted this
> originally), it wouldnt be an oops in progress ... but i guess we can
> just as easily set oops_in_progress to 1 in our code before calling
> this function to keep from having to worry over locks from being
> doubly grabbed.

I don't immediately see how logbuf_lock could be doubly grabbed.  Only if
you're calling this from hard irq context?


-
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/