linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Introduce FORCE

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: <84ses5e55o.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 22:40:27 +0106
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@...e.com>, Petr Mladek
 <pmladek@...e.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Sergey
 Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Marcos Paulo
 de Souza <mpdesouza@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Introduce FORCE_CON flag

On 2024-11-05, Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@...e.com> wrote:
> @@ -2947,6 +2953,7 @@ bool printk_get_next_message(struct printk_message *pmsg, u64 seq,
>  	struct printk_info info;
>  	struct printk_record r;
>  	size_t len = 0;
> +	bool force_con;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Formatting extended messages requires a separate buffer, so use the
> @@ -2965,9 +2972,13 @@ bool printk_get_next_message(struct printk_message *pmsg, u64 seq,
>  
>  	pmsg->seq = r.info->seq;
>  	pmsg->dropped = r.info->seq - seq;
> +	force_con = r.info->flags & LOG_FORCE_CON;
>  
> -	/* Skip record that has level above the console loglevel. */
> -	if (may_suppress && suppress_message_printing(r.info->level))
> +	/*
> +	 * Skip records that are not forced to be printed on consoles and that
> +	 * has level above the console loglevel.
> +	 */
> +	if (!force_con && may_suppress && suppress_message_printing(r.info->level))
>  		goto out;

Rather than adding a new local variable, setting it, and expanding the
condition, it might be cleaner to just update @may_suppress before the
condition check?

	/* Records forced to be printed on consoles must not be skipped. */
	may_suppress &= !(r.info->flags & LOG_FORCE_CON);

Feel free to ignore this suggestion if you think having an extra
variable is easier to follow.

With or without suggested change:

Reviewed-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>