linux-kernel - Re: ehci dynamic debug problem

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1204131539280.1146-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:40:52 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Johannes Stezenbach <js@...21.net>
cc:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ehci dynamic debug problem

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:

> > > Does it make sense now?
> > 
> > No.  What happens if dynamic debug is enabled for one line that calls 
> > dbg_port_buf() but not for another?  There's no way to avoid the string 
> > formatting in both lines, even though one of them discards the result.
> 
> That's why I said in my initial mail:
> 
>   Does dynamic debug offer an "is the message two lines below enabled" test?
> 
> What I meant is that dbg_port() could test if it
> needs to call dbg_port_buf() for this call site.

Oh.  As far as I know, that's not possible.

> Anyway, maybe the dbg_*_buf() are not called often enough to worry?

Probably not.

> If you're OK with "#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG)"
> then maybe you should just do that?

Yes, that sounds best.

Alan Stern

--
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/