linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] printk: Add %ptc to safely print a task's comm

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105121510330.9130@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 May 2011 15:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] printk: Add %ptc to safely print a task's comm

On Tue, 10 May 2011, Joe Perches wrote:

> > Although I'm not sure if there's precedent for a %p value that didn't
> > take a argument. Thoughts on that? Anyone else have an opinion here?
> 
> The uses of %ptc must add an argument or else gcc will complain.
> I suggest you just ignore the argument value and use current.
> 

That doesn't make any sense, why would you needlessly restrict this to 
current when accesses to other threads' ->comm needs to be protected in 
the same way?  I'd like to use this in the oom killer and try to get rid 
of taking task_lock() for every thread group leader in the tasklist dump.
--
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/