[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bldl5exc.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:50:47 +0106
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: fix buffer overflow potential for print_text()
On 2021-01-19, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> wrote:
>>> John, how did you spot these problems?
>>
>> I am preparing my series to remove the logbuf_lock, which also
>> refactors and consolidates code from syslog_print_all() and
>> kmsg_dump_get_buffer(). While testing/verifying my series, I noticed
>> the these oddities in the semantics and decided I should research
>> where they came from and if they were actually necessary.
>
> Any chance you can put those tests somewhere public so that we can
> run them regularly?
I have a collection of hacked-together tools that I use to test most of
the various interfaces of printk. I would need to clean them up if they
should be used for any kind of automated regression testing.
And where should I make such things available? I could put them in a
repo in the Linutronix github account (like I did for the ringbuffer
stress testing tool). (??)
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists