Currently we limit the size of the workqueue name to 24 characters due to
commit ecf6881ff349 ("workqueue: make workqueue->name[] fixed len")
Increase the size to 32 characters and print a warning in the event
the requested name is larger than the limit of 32 characters.

Signed-off-by: Audra Mitchell <audra@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/workqueue.c | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 76e60faed892..8d9dec14b9bb 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ enum {
 	RESCUER_NICE_LEVEL	= MIN_NICE,
 	HIGHPRI_NICE_LEVEL	= MIN_NICE,
 
-	WQ_NAME_LEN		= 24,
+	WQ_NAME_LEN		= 32,
 };
 
 /*
@@ -4666,6 +4666,7 @@ struct workqueue_struct *alloc_workqueue(const char *fmt,
 	va_list args;
 	struct workqueue_struct *wq;
 	struct pool_workqueue *pwq;
+	int len;
 
 	/*
 	 * Unbound && max_active == 1 used to imply ordered, which is no longer
@@ -4692,9 +4693,12 @@ struct workqueue_struct *alloc_workqueue(const char *fmt,
 	}
 
 	va_start(args, max_active);
-	vsnprintf(wq->name, sizeof(wq->name), fmt, args);
+	len = vsnprintf(wq->name, sizeof(wq->name), fmt, args);
 	va_end(args);
 
+	if (len >= WQ_NAME_LEN)
+		pr_warn_once("workqueue: name exceeds WQ_NAME_LEN. Truncating to: %s\n", wq->name);
+
 	max_active = max_active ?: WQ_DFL_ACTIVE;
 	max_active = wq_clamp_max_active(max_active, flags, wq->name);
 
-- 
2.43.0

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 12:08:22PM -0500, Audra Mitchell wrote:
> Currently we limit the size of the workqueue name to 24 characters due to
> commit ecf6881ff349 ("workqueue: make workqueue->name[] fixed len")
> Increase the size to 32 characters and print a warning in the event
> the requested name is larger than the limit of 32 characters.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Audra Mitchell <audra@redhat.com>

Applied to wq/for-6.9.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 08:31:45AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 12:08:22PM -0500, Audra Mitchell wrote:
> > Currently we limit the size of the workqueue name to 24 characters due to
> > commit ecf6881ff349 ("workqueue: make workqueue->name[] fixed len")
> > Increase the size to 32 characters and print a warning in the event
> > the requested name is larger than the limit of 32 characters.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Audra Mitchell <audra@redhat.com>
> 
> Applied to wq/for-6.9.
> 
> Thanks.

Hey Tejun (and all others)

Thank you for the response. May I humbly mention that I did find the following
while testing my patch:

[    0.120298] workqueue: name exceeds WQ_NAME_LEN (32 chars). Truncating to: events_freezable_power_efficien

In an effort to be thorough, would you like me to submit a patch shortening
this? Perhaps to "events_freezable_pwr_efficient"?

To be clear, I am not pushing the change, however, I do want to make sure that
the changes being submitted are not causing additional clutter. 

Thanks!

Hello,

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 09:40:58AM -0500, Audra Mitchell wrote:
> Thank you for the response. May I humbly mention that I did find the following
> while testing my patch:
> 
> [    0.120298] workqueue: name exceeds WQ_NAME_LEN (32 chars). Truncating to: events_freezable_power_efficien
> 
> In an effort to be thorough, would you like me to submit a patch shortening
> this? Perhaps to "events_freezable_pwr_efficient"?
> 
> To be clear, I am not pushing the change, however, I do want to make sure that
> the changes being submitted are not causing additional clutter. 

Oh yeah, please go ahead.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 07:09:02AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 09:40:58AM -0500, Audra Mitchell wrote:
> > Thank you for the response. May I humbly mention that I did find the following
> > while testing my patch:
> > 
> > [    0.120298] workqueue: name exceeds WQ_NAME_LEN (32 chars). Truncating to: events_freezable_power_efficien
> > 
> > In an effort to be thorough, would you like me to submit a patch shortening
> > this? Perhaps to "events_freezable_pwr_efficient"?
> > 
> > To be clear, I am not pushing the change, however, I do want to make sure that
> > the changes being submitted are not causing additional clutter. 
> 
> Oh yeah, please go ahead.
> 
> Thanks.

Hey Tejun,

Do you want this as a stand alone patch or do you want me to re-submit both
patches as a series?

Thanks

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 03:30:54PM -0500, Audra Mitchell wrote:
> Do you want this as a stand alone patch or do you want me to re-submit both
> patches as a series?

A separate patch would be great.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun