linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] tracing/NMI/printk: Use seq_buf for safe printing from NMI context

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: <CA+55aFz5-_LKW4JHEBoWinN9_ouNcGRWAF2FUA35u46FRN-Kxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:29:40 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tracing/NMI/printk: Use seq_buf for safe printing from
 NMI context

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Would it perhaps be possible/reasonable to also use this to get rid of
> the horrible "early_printk()" stuff [...]

Another question: the "preempt_disable/enable()" around the use of the
per-cpu vprintk_func thing seems dubious.

Why do I say that? I think it cannot possibly make sense. Anybody who
sets that function pointer to any per-cpu value has to disable
preemption for that to make sense, so doing it inside the printk()
paths seems dubious at best.

No?

                    Linus
--
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/