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]

Message-ID: <87eehzkj5x.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 01 Feb 2021 14:38:42 +0106
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
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 2021-02-01, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> 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.

Yes, I assumed so and adjusted my preparation-v2 series accordingly.

John