linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:55:44 +0000
From:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...tec.com>
To:	Paul Burton <paul.burton@...tec.com>
CC:	<linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <adech.fo@...il.com>,
	"Steven J. Hill" <Steven.Hill@...tec.com>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Paul Burton wrote:

> >  Hmm, this looks like a fatal error condition to me, the module won't 
> > load.  Why `pr_warn' rather than `pr_err' then?  Likewise in the other 
> > file.
> 
> To me fatality implies death, and nothing dies here. The module isn't
> loaded but that's done gracefully & is not likely due to an error in the
> kernel - it's far more likely that the module isn't valid. So to me,
> warning seems appropriate rather than implying an error in the kernel.

 It may be bikeshedding, however these levels affect what goes to syslog 
and the console.  There are `crit', `alert' and `emerg' levels above, to 
raise more severe conditions.  As to `warn' I'd expect one on a succesful 
action made with some limitations, e.g. a compatibility mode of some kind, 
running with a performance limitation, some functionality disabled, etc.  
There's also `notice', which is lower, I'd use for normal actions that 
might require operator's attention, e.g. I'd put switching a network 
interface into the promiscuous mode there, due to its side effect on 
overall system performance.

 And I don't think it has to be a bug in the kernel to raise an `err' 
condition.  However I do agree the boundary here may be a bit fuzzy and 
code you've been changing doesn't seem consistent either.

 FWIW,

  Maciej