linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] panic: Avoid the extra noise dmesg

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:29:39 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] panic: Avoid the extra noise dmesg

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 09:54:01 +0100
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:

I'll put my $0.02 in, and say I like the idea of the patch too.


> > > Thoughts:
> > > 
> > > - why do the suppression in vprintk_emit()?  Doing it right at entry
> > >   to printk() seems cleaner, more explicit?  
> > 
> > Yes, I put it in printk() in one earlier post, and Petr suggested to
> > put it into vprintk_emit so that it works for all printk() interfaces,
> > like the devkmsg_write -> printk_emit -> vprintk_emit path.  
> 
> Yes, there are more printk interfaces. The check in vprintk_emit()
> allows to calm down also prink_deferred() and dev_printk().

Agreed.

> 
> > > - Other code sites may wish to suppress all printks.  Perhaps
> > >   `panic_suppress_printk' should just be called `suppress_printk'?  
> > Ok, then I'll move the definition from panic.c to printk code.  
> 
> This change looks fine to me.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Petr
> 
> PS: I am sorry for the late review. I have spent many days with
> reviewing a proposal of rewrite of printk() internals.

Thanks for doing that, BTW.

-- Steve