linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next v1 2/3] printk: remove safe buffers

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, 22 Mar 2021 12:16:15 +0100
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Alistair Popple <alistair@...ple.id.au>,
        Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Cédric Le Goater <clg@...d.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>,
        Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
        Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>,
        Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...onical.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v1 2/3] printk: remove safe buffers

On 2021-03-21, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org> wrote:
>> @@ -369,7 +70,10 @@ __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_func(const char *fmt, va_list args)
>>  	 * Use the main logbuf even in NMI. But avoid calling console
>>  	 * drivers that might have their own locks.
>>  	 */
>> -	if ((this_cpu_read(printk_context) & PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK)) {
>> +	if (this_cpu_read(printk_context) &
>> +	    (PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK |
>> +	     PRINTK_NMI_CONTEXT_MASK |
>> +	     PRINTK_SAFE_CONTEXT_MASK)) {
>
> Do we need printk_nmi_direct_enter/exit() and
> PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK?  Seems like all printk_safe() paths
> are now DIRECT - we store messages to the prb, but don't call console
> drivers.

I was planning on waiting until the kthreads are introduced, in which
case printk_safe.c is completely removed. But I suppose I could switch
the 1 printk_nmi_direct_enter() user to printk_nmi_enter() so that
PRINTK_NMI_DIRECT_CONTEXT_MASK can be removed now. I would do this in a
4th patch of the series.

John Ogness