[cc Jan Kara]
On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 01:13:37PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Given that I this isn't really a regression with my patches (it
>> probably never worked much better on 32-bit and the regs never would
>> have shown at all on 64-bit),
>
> You're right. That thing calls printk *and* early_printk, WTF:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK
>
> call early_printk
> ...
>
> call dump_stack
>
> ...
>
> call __print_symbol
>
> those last two call printk. Great.
>
>> I propose a different approach: make
>> printk work earlier. Something like:
>>
>> if (early) {
>> early_printk(args);
>> }
>>
>> or early_vprintk or whatever.
>>
>> If the cost of a branch mattered, this could be alternative-patched
>> out later on, but that seems silly. I also bet that a more sensible
>> fallback could be created in which printk would try to use an early
>> console if there's no real console.
>
> So how about this:
>
> printk() does
>
> vprintk_func = this_cpu_read(printk_func);
>
> and that's
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(printk_func_t, printk_func) = vprintk_default
>
> I guess we can make that function be early_printk-something and once
> printk is initialized, we overwrite it with vprintk_default.
>
> Elegant and no need for if branches and alternatives.
>
> Hmmm.
Jan, IIRC you were looking at printk recently-ish. Any thoughts here?
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
