linux-kernel - Re: POC: Alternative solution: Re: [PATCH 0/4] printk: reimplement 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:   Fri, 14 Aug 2020 19:33:46 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: POC: Alternative solution: Re: [PATCH 0/4] printk: reimplement
 LOG_CONT handling

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 4:52 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 15:46 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > This is why I think any discussion that says "people should buffer
> > their lines themselves and we should get rid if pr_cont()" is
> > fundamentally broken.
> >
> > Don't go down that hole. I won't take it. It's wrong.
>
> I don't think it's wrong per se.

It's *absolutely* and 100% wrong.

Yes, any random *user* of pr_cont() can decide to buffer on it's own.

But when the discussion is about printk() - the implementation, not
the users - then it's complete and utter BS to talk about trying to
get rid of pr_cont().

See the difference?

                Linus