[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305591103.2915.70.camel@work-vm>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 17:11:43 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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 Mon, 2011-05-16 at 16:56 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 16:10 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 23:54 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > > In my attempt to clean up unprotected comm access, I've noticed
> > > > most comm access is done for printk output. To simplify correct
> > > > locking in these cases, I've introduced a new %ptc format,
> > > > which will print the corresponding task's comm.
> > > > Example use:
> > > > printk("%ptc: unaligned epc - sending SIGBUS.\n", current);
> > > > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> []
> > > > +static noinline_for_stack
> > > Actually, why noinline? Did your previous version have there some
> > > TASK_COMM_LEN buffer or anything on stack which is not there anymore?
> > No, I was just following how almost all of the pointer() called
> > functions were declared.
> > But with two pointers and a long, I add more then ip6_string() has on
> > the stack, which uses the same notation.
> > But I can drop that bit if there's really no need for it.
>
> vsprintf can be recursive, I think you should keep it.
Ok. I'll keep it then. Thanks!
-john
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists