linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] printk: new ringbuffer implementation

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: <20190905121101.60c78422@oasis.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:11:01 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "contact@...uxplumbersconf.org" <contact@...uxplumbersconf.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] printk: new ringbuffer implementation


[ Added Ted and Linux Plumbers ]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:38:21 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:  
> > > The alternative lockless approach is still more complicated than
> > > the serialized one. But I think that it is manageable thanks to
> > > the simplified state tracking. And I might safe use some pain
> > > in the long term.  
> > 
> > I've not looked at it yet, sorry. But per the above argument of needing
> > the CPU serialization _anyway_, I don't see a compelling reason not to
> > use it.
> > 
> > It is simple, it works. Let's use it.
> > 
> > If you really fancy a multi-writer buffer, you can always switch to one
> > later, if you can convince someone it actually brings benefits and not
> > just head-aches.  
> 
> Can we please grab one of the TBD slots at kernel summit next week, sit
> down in a room and hash that out?
>

We should definitely be able to find a room that will be available next
week.

-- Steve