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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20171219043658.GD17164@jagdpanzerIV> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:36:58 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv6 00/12] printk: introduce printing kernel thread On (12/18/17 12:46), Steven Rostedt wrote: > > One question is if we really want to rely on offloading in > > this case. What if this is printed to debug some stalled > > system. > > Correct, and this is what I call when debugging hard lockups, and I do > it from NMI. [..] > show_state_filter() is not a normal printk() call. It is used for > debugging. just for the record. a side note. you guys somehow made spectacularly off-target conclusions from the traces I have provided and decided NOT to concentrate on demonstrated behavioural patterns, but on, perhaps, process' names (I really should have renamed i_do_printks to DONALD_TRUMP ;) ) and on how those printk lines got into the logbuf. like if it mattered. [seriously, why?]. the point was not in show_state_filter()... the point was - preemption and things that hand off does. but somehow filling up logbuf when console_sem owner is preempted is unrealistic if printks are coming from task A under normal conditions; and it is a completely different story when the same task A fills up logbuf from OOM while console_sem owner is preempted. the end result is the same in both cases: it's not task A that is going to flush logbuf. it's some other task that will have to do it, possibly being in atomic context. anyway, anyway. -ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists