Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] printk: Have printk() never buffer its data | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:26:06 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 15:56 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > @@ -836,14 +854,45 @@ static size_t msg_print_text(const struct log *msg, bool syslog, > > } > > > > if (buf) { > > - if (print_prefix(msg, syslog, NULL) + > > - text_len + 1>= size - len) > > - break; > > + static bool last_newline = true; > > I'd suggest to move this last_newline flag up to the logbuf_lock > block of global variables - it belongs there. Statics are easily > overlooked and maybe something else running under the > logbuf_lock will want to access this variable in the future.
Will do.
> > > + bool newline = true; > > + bool prefix = true; > > + int facility = msg->level >> 3; > > + > > + /* > > + * The kernel sends some commands via the facility. > > + * To do so, a high number mask is used (LOG_KERNEL) > > + * and the low bits of the mask hold the command bits > > + * that the kernel printk() will use to state how the > > + * msg will be printed. > > + */ > > + if ((facility & LOG_KERNEL) == LOG_KERNEL) { > > + if (facility & LOG_NOPREFIX_SET) > > + prefix = false; > > + if (facility & LOG_NONL_SET) > > + newline = false; > > + } > > I suspect using a separate command flag and passing it along > would be somewhat cleaner - but no strong objections against > this approach either.
Yeah, I hate passing info via the facility, but I didn't want to bloat the struct log any more. As the msg_print_text() is run separately from printk, via the console_unlock(), the struct log is the only way to send information from printk_emit() to msg_print_text().
Right now we have:
struct log { u64 ts_nsec; /* timestamp in nanoseconds */ u16 len; /* length of entire record */ u16 text_len; /* length of text buffer */ u16 dict_len; /* length of dictionary buffer */ u16 level; /* syslog level + facility */ };
This is actually saved on the printk buffer (just not printed). Maybe a better idea would be to break up the level more formally:
instead of:
msg->level = (facility << 3) | (level & 7);
we could do:
msg->level = (flags << 12) | ((facility & 0x1ff) << 3) | (level & 7);
and pass in the flags separately.
Yeah, I think this may be a cleaner solution.
> > > + if (prefix) { > > + /* > > + * Force newline, for last line if this line > > + * is printing out a prefix. > > + */ > > + if (!last_newline) > > + buf[len++] = '\n'; > > + > > + if (print_prefix(msg, syslog, NULL) + > > + text_len + 1 >= size - len) > > + break; > > + > > + len += print_prefix(msg, syslog, buf + len); > > + } > > Just a side note, this is a problem that exists in the new > devkmsg_user code, message size limit handling of > devkmsg_user->buf[] is non-existent and conditions for and > protections against triggering overflow are unclear - right now > it's probably addressed by making the buffer excessively large: > > struct devkmsg_user { > u64 seq; > u32 idx; > struct mutex lock; > char buf[8192]; > }; > > but this may eventually have to be addressed - various things > like newline insertion or automatic escaping can enlargen the > buffer - if an attacker ever has control over a large enough > printk'ed text then this is a potential root hole.
Agreed, this part made me a little nervous about buffer overflow too.
> > > > > - len += print_prefix(msg, syslog, buf + len); > > memcpy(buf + len, text, text_len); > > len += text_len; > > - buf[len++] = '\n'; > > + if (newline) > > + buf[len++] = '\n'; > > + last_newline = newline; > > } else { > > /* SYSLOG_ACTION_* buffer size only calculation */ > > len += print_prefix(msg, syslog, NULL); > > @@ -1267,6 +1316,7 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level, > > static char cont_buf[LOG_LINE_MAX]; > > static size_t cont_len; > > static int cont_level; > > + static bool cont_prefix; > > static struct task_struct *cont_task; > > static char textbuf[LOG_LINE_MAX]; > > > argh. So the vprintk_emit() muck introduced its own large set of > function local statics? Taste fail, really ... > > > char *text = textbuf; > > @@ -1275,8 +1325,12 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level, > > int this_cpu; > > bool newline = false; > > bool prefix = false; > > + bool flush; > > int printed_len = 0; > > > > + /* output from printk() always flush to console (no line buffering) */ > > + flush = facility == 0; > > While your code is correct, this pattern is easily mistaken for > the 'a = b = c' pattern, so I'd suggest writing it as: > > flush = (facility == 0);
Yeah, that looks better. Will fix.
> > Anyway, bike shed painting aside, the patch looks like a > workable solution to me.
Great! Lets hope Kay feels the same way.
-- Steve
| |