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, 30 Sep 2020 11:03:13 +0206
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...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 2020-09-30, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>> Doubling the cost of every single printk by unconditionally doing
>> vsnprintf() twice is a bad idea.
>
> I would prefer to solve this when there are real life problems.
> printk() should not get called in performance sensitive paths in
> the first place.
>
> We could always make the code more complicated when it can be
> justified. Extra buffers is yet another layer (code and memory)
> in the processing. And the current arguments sounds theoretical.

I am preparing a v2 that avoids the memory pool.

John Ogness

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ