From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 971FE90010B for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 18:10:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.88]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p4CMAGYg009433 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 15:10:16 -0700 Received: from pzk27 (pzk27.prod.google.com [10.243.19.155]) by wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p4CM9nQO004391 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 15:10:15 -0700 Received: by pzk27 with SMTP id 27so1145963pzk.41 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 15:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:10:13 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] printk: Add %ptc to safely print a task's comm In-Reply-To: <1305076246.2939.67.camel@work-vm> Message-ID: References: <1305073386-4810-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <1305073386-4810-3-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <1305075090.19586.189.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1305076246.2939.67.camel@work-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: John Stultz Cc: Joe Perches , LKML , Ted Ts'o , KOSAKI Motohiro , Dave Hansen , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org On Tue, 10 May 2011, John Stultz wrote: > > > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c > > > index bc0ac6b..b9c97b8 100644 > > > --- a/lib/vsprintf.c > > > +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c > > > @@ -797,6 +797,26 @@ char *uuid_string(char *buf, char *end, const u8 *addr, > > > return string(buf, end, uuid, spec); > > > } > > > > > > +static noinline_for_stack > > > +char *task_comm_string(char *buf, char *end, u8 *addr, > > > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) > > > > addr should be void * not u8 * > > > > > +{ > > > + struct task_struct *tsk = (struct task_struct *) addr; > > > > no cast. > > > > Maybe it'd be better to use current inside this routine and not > > pass the pointer at all. > > That sounds reasonable. Most users are current, so forcing the more rare > non-current users to copy it to a buffer first and use the normal %s > would not be of much impact. > Please still require an argument, otherwise the oom killer (which could potentially called right before a stack overflow) would be required to use buffers for the commands printed in the tasklist dump. > Although I'm not sure if there's precedent for a %p value that didn't > take a argument. Thoughts on that? Anyone else have an opinion here? > After the cleanups are addressed: Acked-by: David Rientjes It would have been nice if we could force %ptc to expect a struct task_struct * rather than a void *, however. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org