linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] driver: of: overlay: demote message to warning

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]

Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:47:19 -0500
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com>
Cc:     Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, xe-linux-external@...co.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver: of: overlay: demote message to warning

On 9/16/22 17:56, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 05:47:54PM -0500, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe you could add a flag or other indicator which would indicate the overlay will never be
>>> removed. Then your code could rely on this property to inform on if the author
>>> has consider the removal issues related to overlays.
>>
>> No.  I guess I wasn't clear enough above, where I said:
>>
>>    "And I will not accept a
>>     change that suppresses the message if there is no expectation to remove the
>>     overlay."
>>
>> There are multiple reasons for this, but the most fundamental is that if a
>> new overlay is not removable, then any overlay already applied can not be
>> removed (because overlays must be removed in the reverse order that they
>> are applied).  It would be incredibly bad architecture to allow an overlay
>> to block another overlay from being removed.
> 
> So how about an option to turn off removable overlays entirely? As far as I can
> tell it's not used currently by the tiny number of implementation I've seen.
> 
> Cisco doesn't need it, and we could have a smaller kernel without it.
> 
> The issue is that the error log on blast is log level abuse in my opinion. If
> there's no way to fix it, it should not be an error.

The way to fix it is to not have a construct in the overlay that triggers the
message.  In other words, do not add a property to a pre-existing node.  (At
least I think that is what is the underlying cause, if I recall correctly.)

-Frank

> 
> Daniel