From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
Cc:     Michael Thalmeier <michael.thalmeier@hale.at>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tty: ttynull: implement console write
In-Reply-To: <Y+ztReOGJwAbpv52@alley>
References: <20230214115921.399608-1-michael.thalmeier@hale.at>
 <Y+zEAA1hp+3guGxT@axis.com> <Y+ztReOGJwAbpv52@alley>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:24:23 +0106
Message-ID: <87y1oz7y9s.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-02-15, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> That said, the current code is error-prone. The check for non-NULL
> con->write is too far from the caller.

con->write is supposed to be immutable after registration, so having the
check "far from the caller" is not a real danger.

console_emit_next_record() is the toplevel function responsible for
printing on a particular console so I think it is appropriate that the
check is made when determining if this function should be called. I also
think console_is_usable() is the proper place for the NULL check to
reside since that is the function that determines if printing is
allowed.

> I would prefer to make it more safe. For example, I would prevent
> registration of consoles without con->write callback in the first
> place. It would require, to implement the empty write() callback
> for ttynull console as done by this patch.

I would prefer that we do not start encouraging dummy implementations.
If you insist on con->write having _some_ value other than NULL, then we
could define some macro with a special value (CONSOLE_NO_WRITE). But
then we have to check that value. IMHO, allowing NULL is not an issue.

John Ogness