linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] printk: CON_PRINTBUFFER console registration is a bit racy

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: <20180927060107.2ef35dfb@vmware.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:02:04 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: CON_PRINTBUFFER console registration is a bit
 racy

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:37:15 +0200
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:

> If you really want this change, please add a comment, for example:
> 
> /*
>  * Set exclusive_console still with disabled interrupts to
>  * reduce race window with eventual console_flush_on_panic()
>  * that ignores console_lock.
>  */
> 
> I am not against the change. It makes some sense and it does
> not break anything. It is just not obvious and might either
> get easily lost again or it might cause confusion. I mean that
> it might cause false feeling that exclusive_console is
> synchronized by logbuf_lock.
> 
> printk code already is complex enough without this subtle
> tricks.

I'm fine with the change and agree that a comment should be added.

-- Steve