linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] printk: Declare log

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:   Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:24:44 +0100
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] printk: Declare log_wait as external variable

On 2020-02-12, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> I would prefer to split it:
>
>     + printk.c is already too big and would deserve splitting.
>
>     + The two different kmgs interfaces are confusing on its
>       own. IMHO, it will be even more confusing when they
>       live in one huge source file.
>
>
>> I can take a look at dev_ksmg.c/proc_kmsg.c option, unless
>> someone else wants to spend their time on this.
>
> It would be lovely from my POV. I am only concerned about
> the lockless printk() stuff. I would prefer to avoid creating
> too many conflicts in the same merge window. Well, I am
> not sure how many conflicts there would be. Adding John
> into CC.

I would also love to see these changes. But can we _please_ focus on the
lockless printk ringbuffer merge first? The patches already exist and
are (hopefully) being reviewed. I would prefer that such a heavy API
replacement is done _before_ we start any massive refactoring.

John Ogness