Re: [PATCH] printk: Userspace format enumeration support
From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Date: 2021-02-06 02:33:15
Also in:
lkml
Hi Steven, Steven Rostedt writes:
Interesting, because when I was looking at the original patch (looked at the lore link before reading your reply), I thought to myself "this looks exactly like what I did for trace_printk formats", which the above file is where it is shown. I'm curious if this work was inspired by that?
The double __builtin_constant_p() trick was suggested by Johannes based on prior art in trace_puts() just prior to patch submission. Other than that, it seems we came up with basically the same solution independently. :-)
quoted
Anyway, there is something wrong at the moment. The output looks fine with cat. But "less" says that it is a binary format and the output is a bit messy:Hmm, that's usually the case when lseek gets messed up. Not sure how that happened.
It looks as intended to me -- none of the newlines, nulls, or other control sequences are escaped currently, since I didn't immediately see a reason to do that. If that's a blocker though, I'm happy to change it.
quoted
$> less /proc/printk_formats "/proc/printk_formats" may be a binary file. See it anyway? vmlinux,^A3Warning: unable to open an initial console. ^@vmlinux,^A3Failed to execute %s (error %d) ^@vmlinux,^A6Kernel memory protection disabled. ^@vmlinux,^A3Starting init: %s exists but couldn't execute it (error %d) That is for now. I still have to think about it. And I am also curious about what others thing about this idea.I'm not against the idea. I don't think it belongs in /proc. Perhaps debugfs is a better place to put it.
Any location is fine with me, as long as it gets to userspace. How does <debugfs>/printk/formats or <debugfs>/printk/formats/<module> sound to you? Thanks, Chris