linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] printk_ringbuffer: don't needlessly wrap data blocks around

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <28f39264-280d-4381-ad40-893fbaed5a71@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:53:06 +0300
From: Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@...dex-team.ru>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
 Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] printk_ringbuffer: don't needlessly wrap data
 blocks around

On 9/26/25 5:44 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:

> On Fri 2025-09-05 17:41:51, Daniil Tatianin wrote:
>> Previously, data blocks that perfectly fit the data ring buffer would
>> get wrapped around to the beginning for no reason since the calculated
>> offset of the next data block would belong to the next wrap. Since this
>> offset is not actually part of the data block, but rather the offset of
>> where the next data block is going to start, there is no reason to
>> include it when deciding whether the current block fits the buffer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@...dex-team.ru>
> The patch looks good, especially after understanding the problem
> with the maximal record size.
>
> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
> Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
>
> I am sorry that I did not wrote this earlier. I am quite confident
> with the patch but it is quite tricky. And I do not feel comfortable
> with pushing this for 6.18 (the merge window will likely
> start in 3 days).
>
> I am going to queue it for 6.19 so that it could get enough
> testing in linux-next.

Yeah that is fair enough, and no worries.

>
> Best Regards,
> Petr
>
> PS: There is no need to resend the patch. I could fix the indentation
>      when committing it.

Thank you!