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]

Message-Id: <200808171513.13611.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:13:13 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	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 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".
> >>> 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.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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/