linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] printk: add KERN_NOTIME to skip the timestamp

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAH2Cfb9YTAf4j7tv4Q5dWM_jQCzsWBo6ufoT=BXYx5qpgcMCNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 22:00:04 +0800
From:   xiang xiao <xiaoxiang781216@...il.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang@...omi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: add KERN_NOTIME to skip the timestamp

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:47 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:19:01 +0800
> xiang xiao <xiaoxiang781216@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:46 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:11:05 +0800
> > > Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781216@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Because log may already add the timestamp sometime
> > >
> > > Can you be a bit more detailed on this. When and where does this
> > > happen?
> >
> > Here is my case:
> > 1.A small MCU(Cortex M4) in SoC run RTOS
> > 2.RTOS append timestamp to log for the accurate timing
> > 3.RTOS send log to Linux kernel when buffer exceed the threshold
> > 4.Kernel call printk to dump the received buffer
> > So I want that printk skip the timestamp here.
> >
> > > If anything, I would probably prefer that we export whether
> > > time is being printed, and have the caller not print time if printk is
> > > doing it already, than to add the complexity into printk itself.
> >
> > Actually, the timestamp of our initial implementation like your
> > suggestion come from printk,
> > but we found that timestamp from kernel isn't accurate as from RTOS
> > due the buffer and IPC.
> >
>
> If the timestamps are different, then you don't want to remove the
> printk one. Otherwise you are going to have a confusion between your
> added timestamp mixed in with the kernel's inaccurate timestamps.
>

Here is a sample output with this patch:
[   10.991426] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: rpmsg host is online
[   10.991443] remoteproc remoteproc1: registered virtio1 (type 7)
[   10.991450] remoteproc remoteproc1: remote processor
f9210000.toppwr:sen-rproc is now up
[   10.993715] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel
rpmsg-ttySENSOR addr 0x1
[   10.994606] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-ttyGPS addr 0x2
[   10.995236] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-clk addr 0x3
[   10.995702] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-syslog addr 0x4
[   10.996197] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-rtc addr 0x5
[   10.997297] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-hostfs addr 0x6
[   10.999842] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-usrsock addr 0x7
[     0.007680] sensor: NuttX sensor 7.28 e3c2ecb Feb 12 2019 16:53:49
arm song/banks
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[   11.918177] random: crng init done
[   12.567362] e2fsck: e2fsck 1.42.9 (28-Dec-2013)

Without this patch:
[   10.991426] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: rpmsg host is online
[   10.991443] remoteproc remoteproc1: registered virtio1 (type 7)
[   10.991450] remoteproc remoteproc1: remote processor
f9210000.toppwr:sen-rproc is now up
[   10.993715] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel
rpmsg-ttySENSOR addr 0x1
[   10.994606] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-ttyGPS addr 0x2
[   10.995236] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-clk addr 0x3
[   10.995702] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-syslog addr 0x4
[   10.996197] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-rtc addr 0x5
[   10.997297] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-hostfs addr 0x6
[   10.999842] virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio1: creating channel rpmsg-usrsock addr 0x7
[   11.105345][     0.007680] sensor: NuttX sensor 7.28 e3c2ecb Feb 12
2019 16:53:49 arm song/banks
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[   11.918177] random: crng init done
[   12.567362] e2fsck: e2fsck 1.42.9 (28-Dec-2013)

Which one do you think better?

> -- Steve