linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCHv3 2/5] printk: introduce printing kernel thread

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:33:09 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv3 2/5] printk: introduce printing kernel thread

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:42:24 +0900
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> wrote:

> I apply a very simple litmus test. if the answer to the question
> "so we leave console_unlock() and there are pending messages,
> who and when is going to flush the remaining messages?" is
> "something sometime in the future" then it's a no-no.

I totally agree with this, but...

> 
> "something sometime in the future" is equal to "no one".
> 
> we must stay and continue printing. because it gives the right
> answer - "current process and right now. until someone else
> (+printk_kthread) takes over".

Would it be acceptable to have a user knob that allows for it not to
happen? That is, let the user of the kernel decide if they care about
critical prints or not? If a knob says, "only print X, then offload"
would that be allowed. Of course the default would be "only print ALL
OF IT" to keep the current behavior.

A lot of times the console isn't recorded to debug hard lock ups. I
know most desktops running a GUI do not. When ever my workstation locks
up, and it has no serial, I don't get to see the dmesg at all. In this
situation, I don't care if the prints are offloaded or not.

-- Steve