> > So you turn it on if your applications are playing up. bfd.
>
> You might not know applications are segfaulting. e.g. when I originally
> enabled it we found that a few obscure cases in a default system
> were occasionally segfaulting, but nobody noticed because there
> wasn't a really visibl
On Thursday 26 July 2007 12:14:06 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:46:23 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a printk
> > > we fix it, end of story.
> >
> > I'm firmly against disabling it on x86-6
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:17:28 +0200 Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07/26/2007 12:16 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:46:23 +0200
> > Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a printk
> >>> we fix
On 07/26/2007 12:16 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:46:23 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a printk
we fix it, end of story.
I'm firmly against disabling it on x86-64 by default. The printks are extremly
u
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:46:23 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a printk
> > we fix it, end of story.
>
> I'm firmly against disabling it on x86-64 by default.
We know you are, and the consensus and past practice d
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:46:23 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a printk
> > we fix it, end of story.
>
> I'm firmly against disabling it on x86-64 by default. The printks are extremly
> useful and have found many b
> Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a printk
> we fix it, end of story.
I'm firmly against disabling it on x86-64 by default. The printks are extremly
useful and have found many bugs in the past.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
On 07/26/2007 01:25 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:07:56 -0700
"Masoud Sharbiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is rate limited; Do you need me to rewrite it with it being
disabled by default?
Yes please.
Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:40:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Masoud Asgharifard
Sharbiani) wrote:
> This patch makes the i386 behave the same way that x86_64 does when a
> segfault happens. A line gets printed to the kernel log so that tools
> that need to check for failures can behave more uniformly be
On 7/25/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:40:06 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Masoud Asgharifard Sharbiani) wrote:
> > Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a printk
> > we fix it, end of story. I don't know why this even slightly
> > cont
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:40:06 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Masoud Asgharifard Sharbiani) wrote:
> > Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger a printk
> > we fix it, end of story. I don't know why this even slightly
> > controversial.
> >
>
> Fair enough. Here it is:
My favou
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 04:25:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:07:56 -0700
> "Masoud Sharbiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 7/25/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:57:43 +0200
> > > Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:07:56 -0700
"Masoud Sharbiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:57:43 +0200
> > Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:45, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > > > plz don
On 7/25/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:57:43 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:45, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > plz don't enable it by default... :/
> > any user can spam syslog with these messages and if syslog is run a
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:57:43 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:45, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > plz don't enable it by default... :/
> > any user can spam syslog with these messages and if syslog is run as root
> > can take the whole diskspace...
>
> There a
Masoud Sharbiani wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>plz don't enable it by default... :/
>>any user can spam syslog with these messages and if syslog is run as root
>>can take the whole diskspace...
>
>
>
> Yeah, but:
> 1) Right now (without this patch), it is
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:45, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> plz don't enable it by default... :/
> any user can spam syslog with these messages and if syslog is run as root
> can take the whole diskspace...
There are plenty of other ways to cause syslog messages anyways; this argument
is 100% bogus
On 7/25/07, Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
plz don't enable it by default... :/
any user can spam syslog with these messages and if syslog is run as root
can take the whole diskspace...
Yeah, but:
1) Right now (without this patch), it is enabled by default with _no_
rate control in
plz don't enable it by default... :/
any user can spam syslog with these messages and if syslog is run as root
can take the whole diskspace...
Thanks,
Kirill
Masoud Asgharifard Sharbiani wrote:
> Hello,
> This patch makes the i386 behave the same way that x86_64 does when a
> segfault happens. A
19 matches
Mail list logo
