linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] New kernel-message logging API

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: <200709231505.37410.rob@landley.net>
Date:	Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:05:37 -0500
From:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To:	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Joe Perches" <joe@...ches.com>,
	"Dick Streefland" <dick.streefland@...ium.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] New kernel-message logging API

On Saturday 22 September 2007 2:27:29 pm Vegard Nossum wrote:
> After recent discussions on LKML and a general dissatisfaction at the
> current printk() kernel-message logging interface, I've decided to
> write down some of the ideas for a better system.
>
>
> Requirements
> ============
>
>  * Backwards compatibility with printk(), syslog(), etc.

I.E. what we have now works just fine for what it does.

>  * Extensibility. Features like timestamping or file/line recording
> [1] should be both selectable at compile-time and (if compiled in) at
> run-time.

That doesn't require changing the API.  Allowing the compiler to eliminate 
messages below a threshold requires changing the API.

>
> API
> ===
>
> #define kprint(fmt, ...)
>
> The main part of the kprint interface should be the kprint() function.

And then you propose not having a single kprint() function...

> To support the different log-levels, there exists one kprint_*()
> function for each log-level, for example kprint_info().

Why is this better than feeding the level in as an argument to the macro?

> In order to print several related lines as one chunk, the emitter
> should first allocate an object of the type struct kprint_buffer.

You know, I'm pretty happy with a first pass that doesn't address this issue 
at all.  Why bundle three unrelated problems into a single all-or-nothing 
pass?

Rob
-- 
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
  - Ken Thompson.
-
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/