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:	Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:06:59 +0900
From:	Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: ioremap: remove physical address warning message

(2010/06/12 2:44), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/11/2010 02:20 AM, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
>> Current ioremap() code for x86 displays warning message if too high
>> address to handle is passed. But this can happen as usual cases. For
>> example, if 64-bit BAR is assigned to a PCI device and its device
>> driver calls pci_iomap(). So this patch changes the warning messages
>> as follows.
>>
>> - Change printk message from KERN_WARNING to KERN_DEBUG
>> - Remove WARN_ON_ONCE()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kenji Kaneshige<kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
>>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c |    3 +--
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6.34/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.34.orig/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c	2010-06-10 07:28:31.966187993 +0900
>> +++ linux-2.6.34/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c	2010-06-10 07:28:33.146375380 +0900
>> @@ -78,9 +78,8 @@
>>   		return NULL;
>>
>>   	if (!phys_addr_valid(phys_addr)) {
>> -		printk(KERN_WARNING "ioremap: invalid physical address %llx\n",
>> +		printk(KERN_DEBUG "ioremap: can't map physical address %llx\n",
>>   		       (unsigned long long)phys_addr);
>> -		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>>   		return NULL;
>>   	}
>>
>
> Fair to change the message, but the priority level really seems way
> insufficient.  I can see dropping the WARN_ON_ONCE() though.
>

I think KERN_WARNING is a little too high because there is no action
user can take and there is no problem from the hardware/firmware point
of view. How about KERN_INFO instead?

Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ