linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160906071626.GA495@swordfish>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:16:27 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, vlevenetz@...sol.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async

Hello,

On (09/02/16 17:15), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > I meant that this thing
> > 
> > 	local_irq_save() // or preempt_disable()
> > 	...
> > 	if (console_trylock())
> > 		console_unlock();
> > 	...
> > 	local_irq_restore() // or preempt_enable()
> 
> I see.
> 
> > can easily lockup the system if console_trylock() was successful and there
> > are enough messages to print. printk_kthread can't help, because here we
> > basically enforce the `old' behavior. we have async printk, but not async
> > console output. tweaking console_unlock() to offload the actual printing loop
> > to printk_kthread would make the entire console output async:
> > 
> > 	static void console_sync_flush_and_unlock(void)
> > 	{
> > 		for (;;) {
> > 		...
> > 			call_console_drivers();
> > 		...
> > 		}
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	void console_unlock(void)
> > 	{
> > 		if (!MOTORMOUTH && can_printk_async()) {
> > 			up();
> > 			wake_up_process(printk_kthread);
> > 			return;
> > 		}
> > 		console_sync_flush_and_unlock();
> > 	}
> 
> Something like this would make sense. But I would do it in a separate
> patch(set). We need to go through all console_unlock() callers and
> make sure that they are fine with the potential async behavior.
> I would not complicate the async printk patchset by this.

sure. just added one more item to the list.

	-ss