linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3] aerdrv: Move cper_print_aer() call out of interrupt context

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: <A961433CDFF2F640A2866803152E61F95D13A6F2@G9W0715.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date:	Thu, 30 May 2013 04:55:20 +0000
From:	"Ortiz, Lance E" <lance.oritz@...com>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"lance_ortiz@...mail.com" <lance_ortiz@...mail.com>,
	"jiang.liu@...wei.com" <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
	"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"mchehab@...hat.com" <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] aerdrv: Move cper_print_aer() call out of interrupt
 context

> > +	/*
> > +	 * TODO: This function needs to be re-written so that it's output
> > +	 * matches the output of aer_print_error().  Right now, the
> output
> > +	 * is formatted very differently.
> > +	 */
> 
> So we have this big "TODO" comment sitting there very prominently ...
> which Linus
> is bound to ask about if I ask him to pull this into 3.10-rcX ...
> what's the impact of
> this?  What should I say when he asks why should he pull this fix into
> 3.10 when
> there is still some work to do?  Is matching the output no big deal and
> can wait for
> some future, while moving the pci bits to the work function needs to go
> in now?

Tony, 

You have a good point.  Ideally the console output should be the same in both the aer and the cper case.  The output in cper_print_error() does give us a reasonable amount of information, just not as detailed as I the aer case. Also now what we have the trace event for aer, the console output might be less important.  This TODO is a note for future clean-up and is not directly related to the bug being fixed with this patch.  Which lends to the argument of why put the TODO in this patch?  Opportunistic.  I don’t think we want to create a separate patch just for a TODO note.  

So, why pull this patch in even though there is work to do?  The patch fixes a warning that might cause customers un-due concern and removes a call in interrupt context that should not be there.  

Lance