From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B4BC433DB for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:15:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CE622D71 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:15:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A1CE622D71 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id A9F466B0005; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A297D6B0006; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:15:29 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 917126B0007; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:15:29 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0169.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E536B0005 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8C1181AF5C4 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:15:29 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77723780778.03.toe05_2802edd27555 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0500D28A4EB for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:15:28 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: toe05_2802edd27555 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2589 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:15:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5352122D08; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:15:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:15:24 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Timur Tabi Cc: Kees Cook , Matthew Wilcox , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Petr Mladek , roman.fietze@magna.com, John Ogness , linux-mm@kvack.org, Akinobu Mita Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce DUMP_PREFIX_UNHASHED for hex dumps Message-ID: <20210119161524.31c695d3@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <184ab5eb-2508-0761-36c6-061d509fe104@kernel.org> References: <20210116220950.47078-1-timur@kernel.org> <20210118182635.GD2260413@casper.infradead.org> <20210119014725.GH2260413@casper.infradead.org> <202101191135.A78A570@keescook> <29122c86-bfea-2f25-d111-00641cc660ba@kernel.org> <20210119151045.15c1fee3@gandalf.local.home> <184ab5eb-2508-0761-36c6-061d509fe104@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:49:17 -0600 Timur Tabi wrote: > On 1/19/21 2:10 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > I'm curious, what is the result if you replaced %p with %pS? > > > > That way you get a kallsyms offset version of the output, which could still > > be very useful depending on what you are dumping. > > %pS versatile_init+0x0/0x110 > > The address is question is often not related to any symbol, so it > wouldn't make sense to use %pS. When it's not related to any symbol, doesn't it still produce an offset with something close by, that could still give you information that's better than a hashed number. > > Maybe you meant %pK? I'm okay with that instead of %px. If others are OK with that, perhaps that should be the compromise then? -- Steve