Re: [RFC PATCH v1 15/25] printk: print history for new consoles

[John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>]

On 2019-02-26, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>> When new consoles register, they currently print how many messages
>> they have missed. However, many (or all) of those messages may still
>> be in the ring buffer. Add functionality to print as much of the
>> history as available. This is a clean replacement of the old
>> exclusive console hack.
>> 
>> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> index 897219f34cab..6c875abd7b17 100644
>> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> @@ -1506,6 +1506,77 @@ static void format_text(struct printk_log *msg, u64 seq,
>>  	}
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void printk_write_history(struct console *con, u64 master_seq)
>> +{
>> +	struct prb_iterator iter;
>> +	bool time = printk_time;
>> +	static char *ext_text;
>> +	static char *text;
>> +	static char *buf;
>> +	u64 seq;
>> +
>> +	ext_text = kmalloc(CONSOLE_EXT_LOG_MAX, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	text = kmalloc(PRINTK_SPRINT_MAX, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	buf = kmalloc(PRINTK_RECORD_MAX, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!ext_text || !text || !buf)
>> +		return;
>
> We need to free buffers that were successfully allocated.

Ouch. You just found some crazy garbage. The char-pointers are
static. The bug is that it allocates each time a console is
registered. It was supposed to be lazy allocation:

   if (!ext_text)
       ext_text = kmalloc(CONSOLE_EXT_LOG_MAX, GFP_KERNEL);

>> +	if (!(con->flags & CON_ENABLED))
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	if (!con->write)
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	if (!cpu_online(raw_smp_processor_id()) &&
>> +	    !(con->flags & CON_ANYTIME))
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	prb_iter_init(&iter, &printk_rb, NULL);
>> +
>> +	for (;;) {
>> +		struct printk_log *msg;
>> +		size_t ext_len;
>> +		size_t len;
>> +		int ret;
>> +
>> +		ret = prb_iter_next(&iter, buf, PRINTK_RECORD_MAX, &seq);
>> +		if (ret == 0) {
>> +			break;
>> +		} else if (ret < 0) {
>> +			prb_iter_init(&iter, &printk_rb, NULL);
>> +			continue;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		if (seq > master_seq)
>> +			break;
>> +
>> +		con->printk_seq++;
>> +		if (con->printk_seq < seq) {
>> +			print_console_dropped(con, seq - con->printk_seq);
>> +			con->printk_seq = seq;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		msg = (struct printk_log *)buf;
>> +		format_text(msg, master_seq, ext_text, &ext_len, text,
>> +			    &len, time);
>> +
>> +		if (len == 0 && ext_len == 0)
>> +			continue;
>> +
>> +		if (con->flags & CON_EXTENDED)
>> +			con->write(con, ext_text, ext_len);
>> +		else
>> +			con->write(con, text, len);
>> +
>> +		printk_delay(msg->level);
>
> Hmm, this duplicates a lot of code from call_console_drivers() and
> maybe also from printk_kthread_func(). It is error prone. People
> will forget to update this function when working on the main one.
>
> We need to put the shared parts into separate functions.

Agreed.

>> +	}
>> +out:
>> +	con->wrote_history = 1;
>> +	kfree(ext_text);
>> +	kfree(text);
>> +	kfree(buf);
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Call the console drivers, asking them to write out
>>   * log_buf[start] to log_buf[end - 1].
>> @@ -1524,6 +1595,10 @@ static void call_console_drivers(u64 seq, const char *ext_text, size_t ext_len,
>>  	for_each_console(con) {
>>  		if (!(con->flags & CON_ENABLED))
>>  			continue;
>> +		if (!con->wrote_history) {
>> +			printk_write_history(con, seq);
>
> This looks like an alien. The code is supposed to write one message
> from the given buffer. And some huge job is well hidden there.

This is a very simple implementation of a printk kthread. It probably
makes more sense to have a printk kthread per console. That would allow
fast consoles to not be penalized by slow consoles. Due to the
per-console seq tracking, the code would already support it.

> In addition, the code is actually recursive. It will become
> clear when it is deduplicated as suggested above. We should
> avoid it when it is not necessary. Note that recursive code
> is always more prone to mistakes and it is harder to think of.

Agreed.

> I guess that the motivation is to do everything from the printk
> kthread. Is it really necessary? register_console() takes
> console_lock(). It has to be sleepable context by definition.

It is not necessary. It is desired. Why should _any_ task be punished
with console writing? That is what the printk kthread is for.

John Ogness