From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934388AbYBNAO4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:14:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933826AbYBNAOZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:14:25 -0500 Received: from el-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.162.181]:37332 "EHLO el-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932592AbYBNAOS (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:14:18 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=XPvAOnldkeBTZRWwqsxZ9qYAJ/NaTXfKBBCJTSPKXkzz4rxTTi9AHaWZjYpTVN8JkNh5lRN2zWiEYNeP3QVEWKJpFj51E1Pe1VJkvi/CibsoyxssC5/mWwHFylCLb+RNGpVWTdqFSnOpvKkXQ6pXzsqJsWdaQYjd5GlvVH8inxA= Message-ID: <47B387D2.5050808@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:14:10 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: implement printk_buf overflow warning References: <47B2B250.8020209@gmail.com> <20080213155954.c1d0b6ee.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080213155954.c1d0b6ee.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:03:12 +0900 > Tejun Heo wrote: > >> printk silently truncates messages longer than 1024 - 1 bytes. >> Implement overflow detection and append "$PRINTK_BUF_OVERFLOW$\n" to >> truncated messages. > > I don't think I've ever heard of anyone managing to overflow the printk > buffer and it's hard to imagine how a sane person could manage to do this. > > I assume this is happening because of changes in your other patchset, and > that this change is hence associated with those changes and should probably > be a part of the same patch series? I thought this went well with the recursion warning. I'll move it into the mprintk patchset. Thanks. -- tejun