[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200924084555.GJ6442@alley>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 10:45:55 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk 3/5] printk: use buffer pool for sprint buffers
On Thu 2020-09-24 14:40:58, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/09/23 17:11), Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > AFAIK, there is one catch. We need to use va_copy() around
> > the 1st call because va_format can be proceed only once.
> >
>
> Current printk() should be good enough for reporting, say, "Kernel
> stack overflow" errors. Is extra pressure that va_copy() adds something
> that we need to consider?
The thing is that vsprintf() traverses the arguments using va_arg().
It modifies internal values so that the next va_arg() will read
the next value.
If we want to call vsprintf() twice then we need to reset the internal
va_list states. My understanding is that va_copy() is the only legal
way when we are already nested inside va_start()/va_end().
See also the commit 5756b76e4db643d8f7 ("vsprintf: make %pV handling
compatible with kasprintf()").
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists