From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
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 13:53:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200930115307.GD29288@alley> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ft6z1oe7.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
On Wed 2020-09-30 13:48:56, John Ogness wrote:
> 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?
If you have these locations still in head then it would be nice
to add the checks.
But it is not urgent. We should be on the safe side. Both ways
to store new messages are limited again now.
Anyway, please do so in a followup patch. I would like to push this
patchset into linux-next ASAP so that the robots could continue
finding new bugs.
Best Regards,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-30 11:53 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
2020-09-30 11:53 ` Petr Mladek [this message]
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=20200930115307.GD29288@alley \
--to=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).