On Wed 2021-02-10 19:32:10, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-02-09, Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> @@ -1629,9 +1631,13 @@ int do_syslog(int type, char __user *buf, int len, 
> >> int source)
> >>    /* Number of chars in the log buffer */
> >>    case SYSLOG_ACTION_SIZE_UNREAD:
> >>            logbuf_lock_irq();
> >> -          if (syslog_seq < prb_first_valid_seq(prb)) {
> >> -                  /* messages are gone, move to first one */
> >> -                  syslog_seq = prb_first_valid_seq(prb);
> >> +          if (prb_read_valid_info(prb, syslog_seq, &info, NULL)) {
> >> +                  if (info.seq != syslog_seq) {
> >> +                          /* messages are gone, move to first one */
> >> +                          syslog_seq = info.seq;
> >> +                          syslog_partial = 0;
> >> +                  }
> >> +          } else {
> >>                    syslog_partial = 0;
> >
> > I am scratching my head when prb_read_valid_info(prb,
> > syslog_seq, &info, NULL)) might fail.
> 
> It can fail because the descriptor has been invalidated/recycled by
> writers and perhaps there is no valid record that has yet come after it.

I see. From some reasons I though that there should always be at
least one message in the commited state. But it is enough when
it is in reusable state. I should have double checked it.

> I recommend changing your suggestion to:
> 
> >             if (!prb_read_valid_info(prb, syslog_seq, &info, NULL)) {
> >                     /*
> >                      * No unread messages. No need to check/reset
> >                      * syslog_partial. When a reader does read a new
> >                      * message it will notice and appropriately update
> >                      * syslog_seq and reset syslog_partial.
> >                      */

The following comment might be enough after all.

                        /* No unread messages. */

My main concern was that we cleared syslog_partial and continued.
I thought that we might miss a bug this way. But it seems to
be perfectly fine. I just have to update my mental picture.

Otherwise. the fact that syslog_partial will be fixed by the next
successful call is more or less obvious if we change the code as you
propose.

Please, send an updated patch.

Best Regards,
Petr


> >                     logbuf_unlock_irq();
> >                     return 0;
> >             }
> >             if (info.seq != syslog_seq) {
> >                     /* messages are gone, move to first one */
> >                     syslog_seq = info.seq;
> >                     syslog_partial = 0;
> >             }
> 
> John Ogness

Reply via email to