linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for August 14 (sysfs/acpi errors)

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, 24 Sep 2008 03:59:41 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for August 14 (sysfs/acpi errors)



On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:

> On Sunday 17 August 2008 12:30:34 Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 05:48:26AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >>> They have been module options, not prefixed kernel parameters so far,
> > >>> and the prefix was just the module name.
> > >>> So it just strikes back, that acpi uses generic names for the modules,
> > >>> there would have been no problem if "power" would be called
> > >>> "acpi_power" and the options would just be "acpi.acpica_version" and
> > >>> "acpi_power.nocheck".

I think we (all) agree that we should keep the acpi gunk together,
rather than creating namespace sprawl to satisfy the current sysfs code.

> > >>> But well, there are driver modules just called "option", so acpi is not
> > >>> that bad. :)
> > >>>
> > >>>> I think the generic params code should be fixed to handle this.
> > >>>
> > >>> We could try to look up existing directories to use instead of
> > >>> expecting that we need to create and own them. I guess,
> > >>
> > >> sysfs does this anyways, doesn't it. We would just need to teach it
> > >> to not BUG() in this case, perhaps with a special entry point.
> > >> Also a BUG() in general seems a little harsh for this, surely a WARN_ON
> > >> should be enough.
> > >
> > > It is a WARN() call, not a BUG().
> >
> > Ok. Can we remove it? Or add a new entry point that allows to disable it?
> >
> > I don't think relying on link order like Rusty proposes is a good long term
> > solution.
>
> To be clear, I agree with Andi.  If this is for current kernel I'd just fix 
> link order, for longer term we need something cleverer.

This problem first shows up with the addition of the
acpi.power_nocheck modparam, which is staged for 2.6.28.
Is 2.6.28 "current" or longer term?

thanks,
-Len