linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] base firmware: Fix BUG from sysfs attributes change in commit a2db6842873c8e5a70652f278d469128cb52db70

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003132131470.3719@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:46:46 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] base firmware: Fix BUG from sysfs attributes change in
 commit a2db6842873c8e5a70652f278d469128cb52db70

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> It also only affects those fairly rare lockdep users as well, and the only
> affect is to throw a nasty warning message.  Isn't lockdep all about throwing
> nasty warning messages?

Hmm. The report has that "BUG: " message in it (and in the subject line), 
but you're right - it ends up being just a warning, not actually a real 
BUG() (which is a machine killer).

So yeah - it's not as bad as I thought. Sorry.

[ And that "BUG:" in turn seems to be due to Ingo for some reason wanting 
  to confuse BUG_ON() messages (which have that "BUG: " prefix thing) with 
  whatever warning conditions he adds.

  Our warnings used to have that bug too (see commit 8f53b6fcc4: "Don't 
  call a warnign a bug. It's a warning.").

  Ingo: can we agree to not put "BUG: " messages in warnings, ok? It may 
  be a bug (lower-case) that triggers them, but that whole "BUG()" thing 
  has it's own semantics with rather more serious consequences than some 
  warning that lets things continue.

  So I - and I suspect others - react rather more strongly to "BUG:" than 
  to "WARNING:" or to just some regular innocuous message without the
  associations of the machine likely being dead as a result. ]

				Linus
--
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/