linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async

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:	Sun, 6 Mar 2016 23:54:57 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.com, pmladek@...e.com,
	tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, jack@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async

Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> such usage is quite possible.
> 
> problems that I have with console_lock()/console_unlock() is that
> these functions serve a double purpose: exclusive printk() lock and a
> console_drivers list lock.

Yes, I don't like it too.

> 
> **** I haven't really thought about it yet, but I want to split it. ****
> 

Since writing to console does not call schedule(), I think
rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock()/synchronize_rcu() (or synchronize_rcu_*() ?)
can manage it without using
read_lock_console()/read_unlock_console()/write_lock_console()/write_unlock_console().

Replacing console_lock()/console_unlock() for protecting console_drivers list
with RCU might be helpful.