netdev - Re: [PATCHSET] printk, netconsole: implement reliable netconsole

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:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:26:54 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] printk, netconsole: implement reliable netconsole

Hello,

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 03:20:41AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> I didn't mean to introduce netconsole's own version of metadata.
> I meant we don't need to implement in-kernel retry logic.

Hmmm?  I'm not really following where this discussion is headed.  No,
we don't have to put it in the kernel.  We can punt the retry part to
userland as I wrote in another message at some cost to robustness.

> If we can assume that scheduler is working, adding a kernel thread that
> does
> 
>   while (1) {
>       read messages with metadata from /dev/kmsg
>       send them using UDP network
>   }
> 
> might be easier than modifying netconsole module.

But, I mean, if we are gonna do that in kernel, we better do it
properly where it belongs.  What's up with "easier than modifying
netconsole module"?  Why is netconsole special?  And how would the
above be any less complex than a single timer function?  What am I
missing?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html