linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] nvme: Use pr_dbg, not 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: <CAJvTdK=Fbo0in7diYv_4Zk_-zrOPP4skDgpTMOYw-UM8=3R29Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:27:21 -0500
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>
Cc: kbusch@...nel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, maxg@...lanox.com, 
	axboe@...nel.dk, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] nvme: Use pr_dbg, not pr_info, when setting shutdown timeout

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 4:29 AM Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com> wrote:

> > Some words are alarming in routine kernel messages.
> > "timeout" is one of them...
> >
> > Here NVME is routinely setting a timeout value,
> > rather than reporting that a timeout has occurred.
>
> No.
> see the original commit message
>
> "When an NVMe controller reports RTD3 Entry Latency larger than the
> value of shutdown_timeout module parameter, we update the
> shutdown_timeout accordingly to honor RTD3 Entry Latency. Use an
> informational debug level instead of a warning level for it."
>
> So this is not a routine flow. This informs users about using a
> different value than the module param they set.

I have machines in automated testing.
Those machines have zero module params.
This message appears in their dmesg 100% of the time,
and our dmesg scanner complains about them 100% of the time.

Is this a bug in the NVME hardware or software?

If yes, I'll be happy to help  debug it.

If no, then exactly what action is the informed user supposed to take
upon seeing this message?

If none, then the message serves no purpose and should be deleted entirely.

thank you,

Len Brown, Intel