On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 14:19 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
> []
> > @@ -93,26 +93,15 @@ static void printk_stack_address(unsigned long address,
> > int reliable,
> > */
> > void show_opcodes(u8 *rip, const char *loglvl)
> > {
On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 14:19 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
> []
> > @@ -93,26 +93,15 @@ static void printk_stack_address(unsigned long address,
> > int reliable,
> > */
> > void show_opcodes(u8 *rip, const char *loglvl)
> > {
On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 05:54 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Corrected Signed-off-by: addresses.
>
> From 96d9d4d135994a081e54d33d23f5007c53d9b5dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:47:11 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v4] x86: Avoid pr_cont() in show_opcodes()
>
>
On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 05:54 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Corrected Signed-off-by: addresses.
>
> From 96d9d4d135994a081e54d33d23f5007c53d9b5dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:47:11 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v4] x86: Avoid pr_cont() in show_opcodes()
>
>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
> + printk("%sCode: %*ph <%02x> %*ph\n", loglvl,
Ah, I had looked at this code and thought about %ph, but didn't get
through how to split it correctly.
Thanks for the hint!
P.S. I see the result, pretty nice and doesn't use
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
> + printk("%sCode: %*ph <%02x> %*ph\n", loglvl,
Ah, I had looked at this code and thought about %ph, but didn't get
through how to split it correctly.
Thanks for the hint!
P.S. I see the result, pretty nice and doesn't use
Corrected Signed-off-by: addresses.
>From 96d9d4d135994a081e54d33d23f5007c53d9b5dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tetsuo Handa
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:47:11 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v4] x86: Avoid pr_cont() in show_opcodes()
Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
this
Corrected Signed-off-by: addresses.
>From 96d9d4d135994a081e54d33d23f5007c53d9b5dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tetsuo Handa
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:47:11 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v4] x86: Avoid pr_cont() in show_opcodes()
Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
this
On 2018-07-17 15:53, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/07/17 18:01, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> Why not this instead? Less stack use, less code, no intermediary
>> snprintfs, no pr_cont...
>
> Excellent! I didn't notice %ph extension.
>
>> Not compile-tested, probably whitespace-damaged, but you get
On 2018-07-17 15:53, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/07/17 18:01, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> Why not this instead? Less stack use, less code, no intermediary
>> snprintfs, no pr_cont...
>
> Excellent! I didn't notice %ph extension.
>
>> Not compile-tested, probably whitespace-damaged, but you get
On 2018/07/17 18:01, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Why not this instead? Less stack use, less code, no intermediary
> snprintfs, no pr_cont...
Excellent! I didn't notice %ph extension.
> Not compile-tested, probably whitespace-damaged, but you get the idea.
Yes, it works well.
>From
On 2018/07/17 18:01, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Why not this instead? Less stack use, less code, no intermediary
> snprintfs, no pr_cont...
Excellent! I didn't notice %ph extension.
> Not compile-tested, probably whitespace-damaged, but you get the idea.
Yes, it works well.
>From
On 2018-07-07 15:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/07/07 20:12, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>
>>> From: Tetsuo Handa
>>>
>>> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
>>> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
>>>
>>> When we start adding
On 2018-07-07 15:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/07/07 20:12, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>
>>> From: Tetsuo Handa
>>>
>>> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
>>> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
>>>
>>> When we start adding
Ingo, is this patch acceptable?
On 2018/07/07 22:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>From 61752cef56fad2a910f6bfd277e1b9b028aeab43 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa
> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 22:45:30 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v2] x86: Avoid pr_cont() in show_opcodes()
>
> Since syzbot is confused
Ingo, is this patch acceptable?
On 2018/07/07 22:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>From 61752cef56fad2a910f6bfd277e1b9b028aeab43 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa
> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 22:45:30 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v2] x86: Avoid pr_cont() in show_opcodes()
>
> Since syzbot is confused
On 2018/07/11 1:51, David Laight wrote:
> From: Josh Poimboeuf
>> Sent: 09 July 2018 20:12
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
On 2018/07/11 1:51, David Laight wrote:
> From: Josh Poimboeuf
>> Sent: 09 July 2018 20:12
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
From: Josh Poimboeuf
> Sent: 09 July 2018 20:12
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > >> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> > > >> this patch changes show_opcodes() to
From: Josh Poimboeuf
> Sent: 09 July 2018 20:12
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > >> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> > > >> this patch changes show_opcodes() to
On 2018/07/10 4:11, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use
On 2018/07/10 4:11, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > >> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> > >> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
>
> But how big of a problem is that
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > >> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> > >> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
>
> But how big of a problem is that
From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 09 July 2018 09:50
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > >> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> > >> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
snprintf() is probably the wrong function.
You want the
From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 09 July 2018 09:50
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > >> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> > >> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
snprintf() is probably the wrong function.
You want the
On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> >> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
But how big of a problem is that really? We can't very well remove all
pr_cont stuff from the kernel.
On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:54:28PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> >> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
But how big of a problem is that really? We can't very well remove all
pr_cont stuff from the kernel.
On 2018/07/07 20:12, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
>> From: Tetsuo Handa
>>
>> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
>> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
>>
>> When we start adding prefix to each line of printk() output,
>> we will be
On 2018/07/07 20:12, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
>> From: Tetsuo Handa
>>
>> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
>> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
>>
>> When we start adding prefix to each line of printk() output,
>> we will be
* Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> From: Tetsuo Handa
>
> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
>
> When we start adding prefix to each line of printk() output,
> we will be able to handle concurrent printk() messages.
>
>
* Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> From: Tetsuo Handa
>
> Since syzbot is confused by concurrent printk() messages [1],
> this patch changes show_opcodes() to use snprintf().
>
> When we start adding prefix to each line of printk() output,
> we will be able to handle concurrent printk() messages.
>
>
32 matches
Mail list logo
