From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 1/2] printk: avoid and/or handle record truncation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:48:56 +0206 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ft6z1oe7.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200930112836.GC29288@alley>
On 2020-09-30, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> Anyway, I see hardcoded limit more like a hack. It limits something
> somewhere so that some other code somewhere else is safe to use.
>
> And printk.c is really bad from this point. It sometimes does not
> check for overflow because it "knows" that the buffers are big
> enough. But it is error prone code, especially when there are more
> limits defined (pure text, prefix, extended prefix). And it
> will be worse if we allow to add more optional information
> into the prefix.
So should I post a v3 where the checks are added? Or should I add
comments where checks would be, explaining why the checks are not
needed?
John Ogness
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-30 11:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-30 9:01 [PATCH next v2 0/2] printk: fix reading beyond buffer John Ogness
2020-09-30 9:01 ` [PATCH next v2 1/2] printk: avoid and/or handle record truncation John Ogness
2020-09-30 9:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-09-30 10:24 ` John Ogness
2020-09-30 11:28 ` Petr Mladek
2020-09-30 11:42 ` John Ogness [this message]
2020-09-30 11:53 ` Petr Mladek
2020-09-30 23:25 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-09-30 13:29 ` Petr Mladek
2020-09-30 15:25 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-01 7:26 ` Petr Mladek
2020-10-01 7:39 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-01 7:54 ` Petr Mladek
2020-09-30 9:01 ` [PATCH next v2 2/2] printk: reduce setup_text_buf size to LOG_LINE_MAX John Ogness
2020-09-30 13:30 ` [PATCH next v2 0/2] printk: fix reading beyond buffer Petr Mladek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ft6z1oe7.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de \
--to=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®