linux-kernel - RE: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <1203984278.19319.312.camel@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:04:38 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Hawkes Steve-FSH016 <Steve.Hawkes@...orola.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable
	behavior

On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 17:49 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote:
> Are you saying the few lines of code to handle changes to the tunables
> aren't worth keeping?

Yes.

I think the tunables, if needed at all, should be set by modifying
the struct and the call might as well be:

bool __printk_ratelimit(struct printk_ratelimit_state *state)

Another quibble is not directed to your change because it's
preexisting but "tok" isn't a good name and may not even need
to be in the structure.  It does save a multiply though.

I think that anything that attempts a printk is slow path
so it doesn't matter much though.

--
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/