linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Watchdog: sp5100_tco: Lower verbosity of disabled watchdog hardware

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: <8a48ba53-7182-10fa-72cd-fbcee0e4369a@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 16:15:22 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        "open list:WATCHDOG DEVICE DRIVERS" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "ionut_n2001@...oo.com" <ionut_n2001@...oo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Watchdog: sp5100_tco: Lower verbosity of disabled
 watchdog hardware

On 5/9/22 16:10, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> [Public]
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@...il.com> On Behalf Of Guenter Roeck
>> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 17:56
>> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@....com>; Wim Van Sebroeck
>> <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>; open list:WATCHDOG DEVICE DRIVERS <linux-
>> watchdog@...r.kernel.org>; open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
>> Cc: ionut_n2001@...oo.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Watchdog: sp5100_tco: Lower verbosity of disabled
>> watchdog hardware
>>
>> On 5/9/22 09:33, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>> If watchdog hardware has been disabled, currently the kernel driver
>>> will show at err level during probe:
>>>
>>> "Watchdog hardware is disabled"
>>>
>>> This is unnecessarily verbose as there is already a -ENODEV returned.
>>> Lower the level to debug.
>>
>> Is it ? Without this message, a user may try to load the driver,
>> get an error message, and have no idea why the driver was not
>> enabled even though the hardware exists. If anything , -ENODEV
>> is less than perfect. Unfortunately there does not seem to be
>> a better error code, or at least I don't see one.
> 
> If it didn't have modaliases and users only manually loaded it; I would agree
> with you.  However it has MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE, so if that PCI device is around
> then the driver will load either way.  That would translate into an "error message"
> on every boot if you have this module compiled and didn't manually try to load it.
> 

Why don't you just blacklist the driver ?

Guenter