linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

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: <20180110181252.GK3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:12:52 -0800
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        rostedt@...e.goodmis.org, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup

Hello, Steven.

So, everything else on your message, sure.  You do what you have to
do, but I really don't understand the following part, and this has
been the main source of frustration in the whole discussion.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 01:05:17PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> You on the other hand are showing unrealistic scenarios, and crying
> that it's what you see in production, with no proof of it.

I've explained the same scenario multiple times.  Unless you're
assuming that I'm lying, it should be amply clear that the scenario is
unrealistic - we've been seeing them taking place repeatedly for quite
a while.

What I don't understand is why we can't address this seemingly obvious
problem.  If there are technical reasons and the consensus is to not
solve this within flushing logic, sure, we can deal with it otherwise,
but we at least have to be able to agree that there are actual issues
here, no?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun