linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] add blockconsole version 1.1

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: <20120725163905.GA28036@logfs.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:39:05 -0400
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To:	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...lan.co.uk>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	Steve Hodgson <steve@...estorage.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add blockconsole version 1.1

On Wed, 25 July 2012 09:17:09 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> As far as I know there is nothing like netpoll in the block layer so it has to 
> be a lot less reliable than netconsole. Especially with delaying write out to 
> a workqueue. Anyway, I am not arguing, just saying in my opinion those caveats 
> are worth documenting.
...
> My point was that it's reliability will differ depending on the block device 
> in use, which is unlike netconsole. Again I am not arguing against the 
> feature, but if you don't see things like these are worth documenting I give 
> up.

I have nothing against documenting things.  Can you suggest something
better than "reliability of blockconsole will depend on the
reliability of the underlying storage layer", which sounds rather
obvious?

Jörn

--
I don't understand it. Nobody does.
-- Richard P. Feynman
--
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/