linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 22/28] printk,kdb: capture printk() when in kdb shell

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: <4B7A0D2D.2010806@windriver.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:12:45 -0600
From:	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	mingo@...e.hu, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/28] printk,kdb: capture printk() when in kdb shell

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:20:22 -0600 Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> If you feel that would be cleaner, I can make that change, but I would
>> also have to call vprintk() from vkdb_printf when ever kdb_trap_printk
>> is not set.  Do I understand your recommendation correctly?
>>
>>     
>
> Was trying to find
> a way to avoid the code duplication.
>
>
>   


You did make me think about the interface a bit further.  If you were
going to ack one of the versions of this patch, which would you prefer? 
The previous version, this new version or something else?

The difference here is that we use a replaced function call vs using the
if statement.  There are more lines source in the kdb, but the interface
api is clean.

Thanks,
Jason.

View attachment "kdb_printk_integration.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (5079 bytes)