linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] printk: Monitor change of console loglevel.

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]

Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 10:40:56 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Monitor change of console loglevel.

On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 10:17 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > This patch is intended for testing on linux-next.git only, and
> > will be removed after we found what is wrong.
> 
> Honestly, wouldn't it be much better to try to come up with a patch
> that might be acceptable in general.
> 
> For example, how about a config option that just hardcodes
> console_loglevel as a compile-time constant, and where you can't
> change it at all? There are not that many paths that set the console
> log-level, and the few that do could be made to use
> 
>     set_console_log_level(x);
> 
> instead of
> 
>     console_loglevel = x;
> 
> like they do.
> 
> We already have a number of loglevel config options, adding another
> that says "fix log levels at compile time" doesn't sound too bad, and
> I suspect a patch that introduces that set_console_log_level() kind of
> model and just makes "console_loglevel" a constant #define wouldn't be
> too ugly.
> 
> A config option or two that help syzbot doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
> 
> Hmm?

That could also help eliminate unnecessary pr_<foo> output
from object code.