linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch all pr_err() to pr

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: <572534E2.4010705@canonical.com>
Date:	Sat, 30 Apr 2016 23:42:42 +0100
From:	Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Môshe van der Sterre <me@...he.nl>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch all pr_err() to pr_debug() for
 invalid BGRT

On 30/04/16 23:35, Matt Fleming wrote:
> (Adding Colin and Ricardo)
> 
> On Wed, 27 Apr, at 01:23:55PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> How is an end user supposed to see such a message and report it to the
>> people that can fix it?  They can't.  So they report it in their
>> distributions bug tracker and it either gets closed as "yeah, firmware
>> sucks" or it sits there and rots in the hope that some day someone
>> will do something.
>>
>> I understand where you're coming from in a pre-production, development
>> environment but to be quite clear that is not the default environment
>> Linux is run in most of the time.  If this were a kernel warning, that
>> could be fixed with a kernel patch, then maybe it would be worth it.
>> It isn't though.
> 
> If the error messages in the BGRT driver make it impossible for end
> users to achieve a pretty boot experience then I agree, that is a
> kernel bug. BGRT is an exception to the usual rule about complaining
> loudly when we encounter firmware bugs simply because we're dealing
> with UIs in this case.
> 
> That's not to say we should give up reporting these kinds of invalid
> table issues to firmware developers altogether. There are other means
> of doing it, and comprising the wants of many end users for the
> benefit of few firmware developers (relatively) is just not sensible.
> 
> Colin, Ricardo, I haven't checked recently, are there ACPI BGRT
> validations tests in FWTS and LUV? Josh (Triplett), BITS would seem
> like a very good place to include these tests since it already has a
> bunch of ACPI table checks.
> 
fwts does have a BGRT test, although it is fairly trivial:

http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/hwe/fwts.git/tree/src/acpi/bgrt/bgrt.c

Colin