netdev - Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi: Demote messages about fw flags size to info

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, 02 Aug 2017 07:46:48 +0300
From:   Luca Coelho <luca@...lho.fi>
To:     João Paulo Rechi Vita <jprvita@...lessm.com>
Cc:     linuxwifi <linuxwifi@...el.com>,
        "kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "jprvita@...il.com" <jprvita@...il.com>,
        "Berg, Johannes" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        "Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux@...lessm.com" <linux@...lessm.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iwlwifi: Demote messages about fw flags size to info

Hi João Paulo,


On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:58 -0700, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote:
> Hello Luca,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Coelho, Luciano
> <luciano.coelho@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 07:51 -0700, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote:
> 
> (...)
> 
> > > Currently these messages are presented to the user during boot if there
> > > is no bootsplash covering the console, sometimes even if the boot splash
> > > is enabled but has not started yet by the time this message is shown.
> > > 
> 
> I should have provided another piece of information here: all of this
> happens even when booting with the 'quiet' kernel parameter.

Oh, okay, that's annoying.


> > This specific case is harmless, but I'd rather keep this message as an
> > error, because in other situations it could lead to unexpected
> > behavioir, so I prefer to keep it very visible.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I see your point, and I understand the purpose of these messages. I'm
> wondering if perhaps having them at the warning level would give them
> enough visibility, while still keeping a clean boot process to the end
> user. If so, I can send an updated patch.
> 
> Thanks for your reply and for pointing to the fix for the root cause
> of that message.

Sure, I agree it's better to make it use IWL_WARN(), which will generate
a dev_warn() instead of a dev_err().


--
Cheers,
Luca.