linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] printk: Avoid softlockups in console

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: <20130301134321.85e18987.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:43:21 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] printk: Avoid softlockups in console_unlock()

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:30:27 +0100
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:

> > If a CPU remains in your loop where you invoke rcu_cpu_stall_reset(),
> > there is no indication of the stall.  Now, I do understand why having
> > RCU add a CPU stall warning into the mix would be very bad, but it
> > would be good to have some sort of indication that there is stalling.
> > Perhaps a counter visible in sysfs?  Whatever it is, at least some way
> > of diagnosing the stall condition would be very good.
>   I see. If others (Andrew, ping?) are OK with the rest of the patch, I can
> extend it and add a counter of printk() breaks we had to make. That looks
> like a good idea.

hmpf, spose so.  It sound lke the world's least interesting counter but
perhaps it will look more interesting when we see its sparkly
documentation.
--
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/