linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: Omit double-printing ratelimit messages

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: <1526508715.28243.34.camel@arista.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 May 2018 23:11:55 +0100
From:   Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 0x7f454c46@...il.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: Omit double-printing ratelimit messages

On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 16:54 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 04:46:13PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > > Yeah, but what you print is not total sum, it's since the last
> > > interval because without mentioned flag ___ratelimit() will flush
> > > missed counter and print "suppressed" message.  They might even
> > > double if say other proccess has called get_random_bytes() got to
> > > ___ratelimit() and got preempted. This thread finishes
> > > initializing random driver and prints this not-proper-sum
> > > statistics, and when the code flow is back in the first context,
> > > it will print statistics again from ___ratelimit() function.
> > 
> > So, does it make sense to you, Theodore?
> > If not - I'll just resend second patch rebasing and dropping this
> > one.
> 
> Yes, it's correct that it's not the total sum.  I guess your
> complaint
> is that some of the messages are using the "callbacks suppressed"
> message, and the last one is using the random drvier's custom message
> which I think is much more user-friendly.  That being said, although
> I
> think "callbacks suppressed is a terrible message, I agree that using
> a single message makes more sense.  So setting the
> RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE and then calling ratelimit_state_exit() from
> crng_reseed() does make sense.
> 
> In the future I'd like to push for some way to customize --- or
> perhaps just fix --- "callbacks suppressed" to something more sane
> like, "messages ratelimited", but that's more of an aesthetics issue.

Thanks, Ted.
As you've looked inside lib/ratelimit, care to review 2 patch from the
series maybe?

-- 
Thanks,
             Dmitry