linux-kernel - Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead of sprintf().

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]

Date:	Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:22:20 +0800
From:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	josh@...edesktop.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Suggestion] kernel/rcutorture.c: about using scnprintf() instead
 of sprintf().

On 10/14/2013 09:41 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 10/13/2013 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:32:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> Hello Maintainers:
>>>
>>> In srcu_torture_stats(), if cpus are more than 1K, the PAGE_SIZE will
>>> not be enough.
>>>
>>> In rcu_torture_printk(), the 'page' maximized size is 4096, it has a
>>> function pointer for printing, which not tell its maximized length.
>>>
>>> Welcome any additional suggestions or completions.
>>
>> I never have run rcutorture on a system with that many CPUs.  ;-)
>>
> 
> I guess most of members (include me), never have run under that case.
> 
> 
>> Given that rcutorture is not used in production, my approach would be to
>> fix this when I encountered it.  But what change would you suggest, and,
>> more importantly, how would you go about testing it before submitting
>> a patch?
>>
> 
> OK, thanks, I will/should give a fix and test.
> 
> Hmm, In my opinion, we need:
> 
>  - let it pass LTP common simple test (so I can know how to test it).
> 

Oh, after read "Documentation/RCU/torture.txt", it is a test module, so
except related special test (e.g. shrink maximized buffer), it seems not
need additional common test for it (e.g. LTP).

>  - intend to shrink maximized buffer (PAGE_SIZE -> 64, 256 ..) for test.
> 
>  - read your original mail again (about testing contents) as reference.
> 
> Excuse me, I have to do some other things of company, so I will/should
> try to finish it within this week (2013-10-20), if this time point is
> not quite suitable, please let me know, thanks.
> 
> 
>> Or if you are simply reporting this as a bug, please let me know that.
>>
> 
> I will/should do: in q4 of 2013, I will/should spend part of my time
> resources on testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome any additional suggestions or completions.
> 
> Thanks.
> 


-- 
Chen Gang
--
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/