| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAPXgP11evyQQKNDaa00R7qsOFy5Xk-utN1w9OgB4y6NxLZG=UA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 15:29:47 +0200 From: Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartmann <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] printk: convert byte-buffer to variable-length record buffer On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote: > Thanks for bringing sanity into printk, Just to check all the options we have, and I have no good idea how they would work out. It's just an idea, without giving much thought about possible side effects: Can we somehow store the PID of the printk() thread that has left the un-terminated line behind in the buffer, and flush it out when the next printk() is from a differnt PID? That could prevent the mangling of "atomic" printk()s by continuation users, and merging unrelated continuation users together. Would it make sense to make the printk line buffer per CPU, so they are not shared between threads, and continuation could work more reliable? Kay -- 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