linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v3 1/2] ratelimit: Extend to print suppressed messages on release

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: <20160705213147.GH12027@pd.tnic>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jul 2016 23:31:47 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Franck Bui <fbui@...e.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 1/2] ratelimit: Extend to print suppressed messages
 on release

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:53:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Yes, this is new in next. As far as I can see, the new message would only
> appear if we would call ratelimit_state_exit. Correct? We do not call this -
> I assume this is ok?

Right, the idea for the /dev/kmsg use case was to issue the suppressed
count only when we release the ratelimit state.

> We really only want to reuse the rate limit base code (to avoid writing the same
> code twice) and being in lib indicated that this can indeed be used outside
> printk.
> Now: your patch 1 would allow me to get rid of the messages completely
> by setting the flag and by not calling ratelimit_state_exit. Which is probably
> what we should do in our code.

Yeah, that should work for your usecase.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.