linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] detour TTY driver

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: <20100825155716.GB16284@suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:57:16 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Samo Pogacnik <samo_pogacnik@....net>,
	linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-embedded <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] detour TTY driver - now ttyprintk

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:08:13AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Do you want to be able to flip between a real debug interface and a
> > > logging device on the same software set without risking changing behaviour
> > 
> > I don't understand this point.
> 
> A tty has a very specific set of behaviours simply by being a tty. Some
> applications rely upon them so being able to flip between the two
> interfaces is useful.

Would that work for this driver in use as a console?

> > Seriously, look at how Fedora 14 handles this, why can't you do the same
> > for embedded systems all from userspace, no additional code needed
> > anywhere.
> 
> Its a whole set of extra processes and daemons and stuff, and
> minimally uses something like 70K even if its very compact (8K stack, 40K+
> page tables, 16K of buffers, code, data) - oh and I forgot the fifo
> buffering and pty cost - so its near 100K. 1.5K v 100K - for something
> 1.5K of kernel code that anyone else can turn off and would be off by
> default ?

  exec < /dev/console > /dev/kmsg 2>&1

That's one extra process, not that much, right?

> On a lot of embedded systems you don't have all the stuff Fedora carts
> around. No modules, initrds, magic front end processes, graphical startup
> daemons etc, all of which work to produce that feature IFF you have pty
> support in your kernel, and for the current code also glibc.

It sounded like they had an initrd that they cared about here.

> You also want errors to get out (or stored) even if there are crashes -
> which the Fedora one is not very good at. To be fair in the Fedora world
> its not a big deal to say 'Oh dear, boot with ....'. Embedded isn't the
> same, and you want to capture the odd rare error reliably.

again, the above exec line should work for what the embedded people
want, right?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/