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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <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> <20180620091541.GB444@jagdpanzerIV>
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:31:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+bcp4fSBBq3F86T-C4+n-YkeXUGMqpvkJ6vj6mK-TU2EA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: inject caller information into the body of message
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc:     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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?


So this is another reason to get rid of pr_cont entirely, right?