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  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:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:23:00 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...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 Tue 2018-09-25 21:01:35, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for pointing this out. Well, it seems that the change would
require a new syscall to pass the buffer size as long. We need to
be sure that people would use this in the real life.

This thread suggested this change to avoid a checkpatch warning.
The 32GB was mentioned as an example one year ego. This is not enough
for a new syscall from my point of view.

Best Regards,
Petr

Powered by blists - more mailing lists