[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANMq1KB1W77JATT0NmGpKeCCpWrXraoDAH5SgGMgBESRynTBJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 09:13:17 +0800
From: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...onical.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/trace: Add TRACING_ALLOW_PRINTK config option
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:57 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 04:45:24PM +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> > trace_printk is only meant as a debugging tool, and should never be
> > compiled into production code without source code changes, as
> > indicated by the warning that shows up on boot if any trace_printk
> > is called:
> > ** NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE **
> > ** **
> > ** trace_printk() being used. Allocating extra memory. **
> > ** **
> > ** This means that this is a DEBUG kernel and it is **
> > ** unsafe for production use. **
> >
> > If this option is set to n, the kernel will generate a build-time
> > error if trace_printk is used.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
> > include/linux/kernel.h | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> > kernel/trace/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
> > index 196607aaf653082..b6addc6ba669e85 100644
> > +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> > @@ -721,10 +721,15 @@ do { \
> > #define trace_printk(fmt, ...) \
> > do { \
> > char _______STR[] = __stringify((__VA_ARGS__)); \
> > + \
> > + __static_assert( \
> > + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRACING_ALLOW_PRINTK),\
> > + "trace_printk called, please enable CONFIG_TRACING_ALLOW_PRINTK."); \
> > + \
>
> Why __static_assert not normal static_assert?
Oh, I misread the macro code (and didn't read the comment above in
include/linux/build_bug.h). static_assert would be just fine.
>
> Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists