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  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:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 13:45:48 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <>
To:     Steven Rostedt <>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <>,
        Tejun Heo <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load
 balance console writes

On (11/08/17 22:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On (11/08/17 09:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 14:19:55 +0900
> > > Sergey Senozhatsky <> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > the change goes further. I did express some of my concerns during the KS,
> > > > I'll just bring them to the list.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > we now always shift printing from a save - scheduleable - context to
> > > > a potentially unsafe one - atomic. by example:  
> > > 
> > > And vice versa. We are now likely to go from a unscheduleable context
> > > to a schedule one, where before, that didn't exist.  
> > 
> > the existence of "and vice versa" is kinda alarming, isn't it? it's sort
> > of "yes, we can break some things, but we also can improve some things."
> Not really. Because the heuristic is that what calls printk will do the
> printk.

so what we are looking at

   a) we take over printing. can be from safe context to unsafe context
      [well, bad karma]. can be from unsafe context to a safe one. or from
      safe context to another safe context... or from one unsafe context to
      another unsafe context [bad karma again]. we really never know, no
      one does.

      lots of uncertainties - "may be X, may be Y, may be Z". a bigger
      picture: we still can have the same lockup scenarios as we do
      have today.

      and we also bring busy loop with us, so the new console_sem
      owner [regardless its current context] CPU must wait until the
      current console_sem finishes its call_console_drivers(). I
      mentioned it in my another email, you seemed to jump over that
      part. was it irrelevant or wrong?


   b) we offload to printk_kthread [safe context].

why (a) is better than (b)?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists