linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Fix panic caused by passing log_buf

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: <20180925120135.GB523@tigerII.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:01:35 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Fix panic caused by passing log_buf_len
 to command line

On (09/21/18 09:37), Petr Mladek wrote:
> 
> I would personally keep the size as unsigned int. IMHO, a support
> for a log buffer bigger than 4GB is not worth the complexity.
> 

ftrace dumps are bothering me.

Steven Rostedt wrote [0]:
>
> Especially when I have a machine with 240 CPUs. But it also has a ton of
> RAM, I could easily do log_buf_len=32G
>

The systems are getting bigger, so log_buf_len=UINT_MAX+ might become
a norm at some point.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20170428101659.7cd879e7@gandalf.local.home/

	-ss