linux-kernel - Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources

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, 09 Jan 2008 10:34:09 +0100
From:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, bjorn.helgaas@...com, cholvenstot@...cast.net,
	hidave.darkstar@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rene.herman@...access.nl, shaohua.li@...el.com, trenn@...e.de,
	yakui.zhao@...el.com
Subject: Re: pnpacpi : exceeded the max number of IO resources

Len Brown wrote:
>> > Well, yes, the warning is actually new as well. Previously your kernel
>> > just silently ignored 8 more mem resources than it does now it seems.
>> > 
>> > Given that people are hitting these limits, it might make sense to just
>> > do away with the warning for 2.6.24 again while waiting for the dynamic
>> > code?
>> 
>> Ping. Should these warnings be reverted for 2.6.24?
> 
> No. I don't think hiding this issue again is a good idea.
> I'd rather live with people complaining about an addition dmesg line.

We're not talking about "a" additional line. In my case [1] we're talking
about 22 (!) additional identical lines.

Not fixing this before 2.6.24 seems completely inconsistent:
- either this is a real bug and the ERR level message is correct, in which
  case the limits should be increased;
- or hitting the limits is harmless and the message should be changed to
  DEBUG level.

It is great to hear that the memory allocation will become dynamic in the
future and maybe that could just justify your standpoint, but having the
messages is damn ugly and alarming from a user point of view.

Please keep in mind that depending on distro release schedules, 2.6.24 could
live for quite a bit longer than just the period needed to release 2.6.25
(if that is when the dynamic allocation will be implemented).

Cheers,
FJP

[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/6/279
--
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/