| |||||||||||||
Dumb questionDumb questionPosted Jan 16, 2004 16:25 UTC (Fri) by dw (subscriber, #12017)In reply to: Dumb question by sjmadsen Parent article: Keeping printk() under control I can envisage a few situations in which the kernel should really try as hard as it can to get message to the administrator, for instance, a kernel-mode NULL pointer dereference which is just about to cause the system to hang should definately get printed to the console, regardless of the current ratelimiting in effect. Here's another example - given a forced rate limiting system, an evil user could do something to cause many thousands of printks, then switch to another terminal and run a kernel exploit as many times as required to guess the correct offsets, etc. Assuming the failed exploit didn't crash the machine, any messages that it may have caused would have been hidden.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||