linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] printk: Create pr

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: <1470762551.14552.4.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Tue, 09 Aug 2016 10:09:11 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] printk: Create pr_<level> functions

On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 19:01 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Joe,

Hi Geert

> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > Using functions instead of macros can reduce overall code size
> > by eliminating unnecessary "KERN_SOH" prefixes from
> > format strings.

> This change, commit 874f9c7da9a4acbc1 upstream, seems to have an
> (unintendent?) side-effect.
> 
> Before, pr_*() calls without a trailing newline characters would be printed
> with a newline character appended, both on the console and in the output
> of the dmesg command.
> After this commit, no new line character is appended, and the output of
> the next pr_*() call of the same type may be appended, like in:
> 
>   - Truncating RAM at 0x0000000040000000-0x00000000c0000000 to
> -0x0000000070000000
>   - Ignoring RAM at 0x0000000200000000-0x0000000240000000 (!CONFIG_HIGHMEM)
>   + Truncating RAM at 0x0000000040000000-0x00000000c0000000 to
> -0x0000000070000000Ignoring RAM at
> 0x0000000200000000-0x0000000240000000 (!CONFIG_HIGHMEM)
> 
> I don't know why this is happening, hence I had to use git bisect to find
> the offending commit.
> 
> Was this change intentional?

No, that is not intentional.
Thanks for the report, I'll look at it.

> I guess it wouldn't hurt to send patches to add an explicit trailing newline
> characters to messages that lack it?

Always true.