linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi

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: <20170923105031.xd6qslfn3sgingn6@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 23 Sep 2017 12:50:31 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized


* Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> wrote:

> I don't think it makes sense to check for a possible bad
> initialization order at run time on every system when it is all
> decided at build time.
> 
> A more efficient way to make sure developers do not introduce new
> calls to dmi_check_system() too early in the initialization sequence
> is to simply document the expected call order. That way, developers
> have a chance to get it right immediately, without having to
> test-boot their kernel, wonder why it does not work, and parse the
> kernel logs for a warning message. And we get rid of the run-time
> performance penalty as a nice side effect.

Huh? Initialization ordering requirements are very opaque, and by removing the 
debug check any such bugs are actively hidden. How is documentation supposed to 
uncover such bugs once they happen?

So NAK.

Thanks,

	Ingo