[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180925133143.GB601@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:31:43 +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:
> The 32GB was mentioned as an example one year ego. This is not enough
> for a new syscall from my point of view.
I agree. I didn't think of syslog(); was merely thinking about logbuf
and flushing it to the consoles. syslog() stuff is a bit complex. We
sort of don't expect user space to allocate 64G to read all log_buf
messages, do we.
I'm wondering if we can do something like this
---
diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index cf275f4d7912..1b48b61da8fe 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
@@ -1110,9 +1110,15 @@ static void __init log_buf_len_update(unsigned size)
/* save requested log_buf_len since it's too early to process it */
static int __init log_buf_len_setup(char *str)
{
- unsigned size = memparse(str, &str);
+ u64 size = memparse(str, &str);
- log_buf_len_update(size);
+ if (size > UINT_MAX) {
+ size = UINT_MAX;
+ pr_err("log_buf over 4G is not supported. "
+ "Please contact printk maintainers.\n");
+ }
+
+ log_buf_len_update((unsigned int)size);
return 0;
}
---
So we could know that "the day has come".
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists