linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, printk: introduce new format string for flags

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: <87a8psq7r6.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:	Thu, 03 Dec 2015 09:03:09 +0100
From:	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:	yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com>
Cc:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	"open list\:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, printk: introduce new format string for flags

On Thu, Dec 03 2015, yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com> wrote:

>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 13:04, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
>> 
>> On 12/02/2015 06:40 PM, yalin wang wrote:
>> 
>> (please trim your reply next time, no need to quote whole patch here)
>> 
>>> i am thinking why not make %pg* to be more generic ?
>>> not restricted to only GFP / vma flags / page flags .
>>> so could we change format like this ?
>>> define a flag spec struct to include flag and trace_print_flags and some other option :
>>> typedef struct { 
>>> unsigned long flag;
>>> structtrace_print_flags *flags;
>>> unsigned long option; } flag_sec;
>>> flag_sec my_flag;
>>> in printk we only pass like this :
>>> printk(“%pg\n”, &my_flag) ;
>>> then it can print any flags defined by user .
>>> more useful for other drivers to use .
>> 
>> I don't know, it sounds quite complicated

Agreed, I think this would be premature generalization. There's also
some value in having the individual %pgX specifiers, as that allows
individual tweaks such as the mask_out for page flags.

 given that we had no flags printing
>> for years and now there's just three kinds of them. The extra struct flag_sec is
>> IMHO nuissance. No other printk format needs such thing AFAIK? For example, if I
>> were to print page flags from several places, each would have to define the
>> struct flag_sec instance, or some header would have to provide it?
> this can be avoided by provide a macro in header file .
> we can add a new struct to declare trace_print_flags :
> for example:
> #define DECLARE_FLAG_PRINTK_FMT(name, flags_array)   flag_spec name = { .flags = flags_array};
> #define FLAG_PRINTK_FMT(name, flag) ({  name.flag = flag;  &name})
>
> in source code :
> DECLARE_FLAG_PRINTK_FMT(my_flag, vmaflags_names);
> printk(“%pg\n”, FLAG_PRINTK_FMT(my_flag, vma->flag));
>

Compared to printk("%pgv\n", &vma->flag), I know which I'd prefer to read.

> i am not if DECLARE_FLAG_PRINTK_FMT and FLAG_PRINTK_FMT macro 
> can be defined into one macro ?
> maybe need some trick here .
>
> is it possible ?

Technically, I think the answer is yes, at least in C99 (and I suppose
gcc would accept it in gnu89 mode as well).

printk("%pg\n", &(struct flag_printer){.flags = my_flags, .names = vmaflags_names});

Not tested, and I still don't think it would be particularly readable
even when macroized

printk("%pg\n", PRINTF_VMAFLAGS(my_flags));

Rasmus
--
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/