linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce interface to report BIOS bugs

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:	Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:19:07 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	len.brown@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Christian Kornacker <ckornacker@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce interface to report BIOS bugs

On Thursday 21 August 2008 07:52:04 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 August 2008 20:37:42 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

> > Maybe even something as simple as:
> >
> >     #define FW_BUG	"[FW bug]: "
> >
> > would be sufficient, with the idea that people could do this:
> >
> >     dev_err(&dev->dev, FW_BUG "interrupts left enabled\n");
> >
> > I think the user-space value derives from having a consistent string
> > to grep for, so this gives you that.  I'm not sure what value we get
> > from adding the new FW_PRINT_CRIT()/FW_PRINT_WARN() interfaces in the
> > kernel.
> 
> What about this one:
> pr_fw_err() or dev_fw_err() on harmful firmware bugs
> and
> pr_fw_info() on non-harmful but ugly BIOS constructs
> which should not exist, violate the spec or could make
> trouble in the future (maybe Firmware is really better...):
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
> index d24a47f..3204cea 100644
> --- a/include/linux/device.h
> +++ b/include/linux/device.h
> @@ -538,6 +538,9 @@ extern const char *dev_driver_string(struct device *dev);
>  #define dev_info(dev, format, arg...)		\
>  	dev_printk(KERN_INFO , dev , format , ## arg)
>  
> +#define dev_fw_err(dev, format, arg...)		\
> +	dev_printk(KERN_ERR "[BIOS Bug] ", dev , format , ## arg)
> +
>  #ifdef DEBUG
>  #define dev_dbg(dev, format, arg...)		\
>  	dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG , dev , format , ## arg)
> diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
> index 2651f80..b20f618 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -303,6 +303,12 @@ static inline char *pack_hex_byte(char *buf, u8 byte)
>  #define pr_info(fmt, arg...) \
>  	printk(KERN_INFO fmt, ##arg)
>  
> +#define pr_fw_err(fmt, arg...) \
> +	printk(KERN_ERR "[BIOS Bug]" fmt, ##arg)
> +
> +#define pr_fw_info(fmt, arg...) \
> +	printk(KERN_INFO "[BIOS]" fmt, ##arg)
> +
>  #ifdef DEBUG
>  /* If you are writing a driver, please use dev_dbg instead */
>  #define pr_debug(fmt, arg...) \

What value do we gain by defining dev_fw_err(), pr_fw_err(), and
pr_fw_info(), versus just defining FW_BUG?  If they're useful
for something, fine; it's just that I don't know yet what they add.

Bjorn
--
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/