On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:55 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/16/22 16:40, Jeff Xu wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 2:06 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 13:46:58 -0800 Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:35 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:11:44AM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote: > >>>>> Once per boot seems too little, it would be nice if we can list all processes. > >>>>> I agree ratelimited might be too much. > >>>>> There is a feature gap here for logging. > >>>>> > >>>>> Kees, what do you think ? > >>>> > >>>> I agree once per boot is kind of frustrating "I fixed the one warning, > >>>> oh, now it's coming from a different process". But ratelimit is, in > >>>> retrospect, still too often. > >>>> > >>>> Let's go with per boot -- this should be noisy "enough" to get the > >>>> changes in API into the callers without being too much of a hassle. > >>>> > >>> Agreed. Let's go with per boot. > >>> > >>> Hi Andrew, what is your preference ? I can send a patch or you > >>> directly fix it in mm-unstable ? > >> > >> Like this? > >> > > Yes. Thanks! > > > > Sorry jumping into this discussion a bit late. Is it possible to provide > a way to enable full logging as a debug option to tag more processes? > Codewise it is possible, maybe by adding a sysctl or CONFIG_, but I am not sure the best practice to do this with the kernel? Kees/Andrew, do you have suggestions ? Thanks Jeff > thanks, > -- Shuah >
