linux-kernel - Introduce interface to report BIOS bugs (reworked, FW

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:27:08 +0200
From:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To:	ak@...ux.intel.com
Cc:	bjorn.helgaas@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	ckornacker@...e.de
Subject: Introduce interface to report BIOS bugs (reworked, FW_BUG simple solution)

Even simplier, using FW_BUG define. I agree that the first implementation
was over-designed, I somehow liked the printk_fw_err() and printk_fw_info()
more, looked somehow more consistent with:

#define pr_info(fmt, arg...) \
        printk(KERN_INFO fmt, ##arg)
(and others).

Hmm, it shouldn't really matter.
I wonder whether it works out that messages are hidden to the ordinary
user with printk(KERN_INFO FW_BUG...).
Something that vendors get an idea that they should not do this, but
hiding it on a normally booted system is needed (but e.g. show it on a
linuxfirmwarekit booted kernel).

printk(KERN_DEBUG FW_BUG...)
Won't work because there you get too much output?
Are these patches sufficient to achieve above?

      Thomas

PS: Forgot to add Pavel to CC who also commented on previous patches,
it's work to do it right now, I expect you read this anyway.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/