linux-kernel - Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev

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: <20171012195401.GA25996@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:54:01 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Radu Rendec <rrendec@...sta.com>
Cc:     Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Lowering the log level in watchdog_dev_register when err==-EBUSY

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:15:59PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 11:46 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote:
> > > In a project I'm working on we have a valid use case where we activate
> > > both the i6300esb and softdog watchdogs. We always activate i6300esb
> > > first (which uses the "legacy" watchdog API) and then softdog. This
> > > gets us two "error" level messages (coming from watchdog_cdev_register)
> > > although softdog falls back to the "new" API and registers its char
> > > device just fine.
> > > 
> > > Since watchdog_cdev_register/watchdog_dev_register seem to be used only
> > > by watchdog_register_device and the latter always falls back to the
> > > "new" API, I'm thinking about lowering the log level of these messages
> > > when err is -EBUSY.
> >
> > I would suggest to convert the offending driver to use the watchdog subsystem
> > (and along the line remove the restriction of only supporting a single
> > instance). You have the hardware, so that should be a straightforward change.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion! That makes sense. I will start working on
> converting i6300esb and submit a patch in a few days.
> 
> By the way, I don't have the hardware. I'm using it with KVM (Qemu),
> but I guess that's good enough since I'm not going to touch any of the
> code parts that deal with the hardware.
> 
Ah, interesting. Can you send me the qemu command line ?

Thanks,
Guenter