[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180925123716.GD523@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:37:16 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
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 (09/25/18 14:23), Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> 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.
Agreed.
> This thread suggested this change to avoid a checkpatch warning.
Not exactly. I suggested u64 change not because of a checkpatch
warning. But because of u64 memparse() return and because of potential
log_buf_len=4G+
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists