linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] i386/x86_64: Allow disabling the putstr's from compressed boot wrapper

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]

Message-Id: <200705251623.55551.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Date:	Fri, 25 May 2007 16:23:55 -0700
From:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Ben Collins <ben.collins@...ntu.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Ben Collins <bcollins@...ntu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] i386/x86_64: Allow disabling the putstr's from	compressed boot wrapper

On Friday, May 25, 2007 12:45:40 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 13:33 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Ben Collins <bcollins@...ntu.com> writes:
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Because there's no other way to make the kernel totally quiet. We've
> > been patching this out so that the boot sequence has that "clean look".
> >
> > Other than that, it's useless :)
>
> Worse than that, it's harmful.
>
> "Clean look" means "undebuggable."

But how often do you have to debug bootloader or compressed boot code?  In 
fact, most debug output like this isn't very useful after some initial 
debugging, so we usually take it out.  I'm not sure why this would be any 
different...

Jesse


-
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/