linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH printk-rework 08/12] printk: introduce a kmsg

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:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 14:17:17 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk-rework 08/12] printk: introduce a kmsg_dump
 iterator

On Tue 2021-01-26 22:21:47, John Ogness wrote:
> Rather than store the iterator information into the registered
> kmsg_dump structure, create a separate iterator structure. The
> kmsg_dump_iter structure can reside on the stack of the caller,
> thus allowing lockless use of the kmsg_dump functions.
> 
> This is in preparation for removal of @logbuf_lock.

> diff --git a/include/linux/kmsg_dump.h b/include/linux/kmsg_dump.h
> index 76cc4122d08e..ecc98f549d93 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kmsg_dump.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kmsg_dump.h
> @@ -29,6 +29,18 @@ enum kmsg_dump_reason {
>  	KMSG_DUMP_MAX
>  };
>  
> +/**
> + * struct kmsg_dumper_iter - iterator for kernel crash message dumper
> + * @active:	Flag that specifies if this is currently dumping
> + * @cur_seq:	The record to dump (private)
> + * @next_seq:	The first record of the next block (private)

Just to be sure. This description should get update if you agree with
the alternative one in the 1st patch.

> + */
> +struct kmsg_dumper_iter {
> +	bool	active;
> +	u64	cur_seq;
> +	u64	next_seq;
> +};
> +

Otherwise, I like this change.

Best Regards,
Petr