Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:18:10 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: inject caller information into the body of
 message
Message-ID: <20180620091541.GB444@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <20180511095004.GA6575@jagdpanzerIV>
 <201805112058.AAB05258.HJQFFOMFOVtOSL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <20180517112135.GB20796@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20180518121506.wilixxkznbtskw34@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20180524021451.GA23443@jagdpanzerIV>
 <CACT4Y+brbqfBWntjVaj-Ri2WhBdXpkA_PYs59qgLZ0vtepZEtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+ZGSefrYL9xtQs=yPMRNFsOUumuJXsShJPhCOBSLySxuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180620083126.GA477@jagdpanzerIV>
 <CACT4Y+YMubTm1xduj+XCbQnNwQxYFLjBT33cFKisN1HyeaBpZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180620090413.GA444@jagdpanzerIV>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180620090413.GA444@jagdpanzerIV>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (06/20/18 18:06), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> 
> b) printk_safe output is quite uncommon. And we flush per-CPU buffer
>    from the same CPU which has caused printk_safe output [except for
>    panic() flush] therefore logging the info available to log_store()
>    seemed enough. IOW, once again, was a bit unsure if we want to add
>    some complex code to already complex code, with just one potential
>    user.

BTW, pr_cont() handling is not so simple when we are in printk_safe()
context. Unlike vprintk_emit() [normal printk], we don't use any
dedicated pr_cont() buffer in printk_safe. So, at a glance, I suspect
that injecting context info at every printk_safe_log_store() call for
`for (...) pr_cont()' loop is going to produce something like this:
	I<10> 23 I<10> 43 I<10> 47 ....

	// Hmm, maybe the line will endup having two prefixes. Once
	// from printk_safe_log_store, the other from normal printk
	// log_store().

While the same `for (...) pr_cont()' called from normal printk() context
will produce
	I<10> 32 43 47 ....

It could be that I'm wrong.
Tetsuo, have you tested pr_cont() from printk_safe() context?

	-ss