linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: unwind: improve unwinders for noreturn case

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: <98468785-ed75-f812-7263-1adf677f00d2@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:46:31 +0800
From: Jiangfeng Xiao <xiaojiangfeng@...wei.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	<arnd@...db.de>, <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>, <haibo.li@...iatek.com>,
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, <amergnat@...libre.com>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	<douzhaolei@...wei.com>, <gustavoars@...nel.org>, <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
	<kepler.chenxin@...wei.com>, <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	<linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<nixiaoming@...wei.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>, <wangbing6@...wei.com>,
	<wangfangpeng1@...wei.com>, <jannh@...gle.com>, <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: unwind: improve unwinders for noreturn case



On 2024/3/20 11:34, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:30:13AM +0800, Jiangfeng Xiao wrote:
>> The checkpatch.pl script reports the "WARNING: printk() should
>> include KERN_<LEVEL> facility level" warning.
>>
>> That's why I changed printk to pr_warn.
>> I should change printk to printk(KERN_DEFAULT).
> 
> No, you should ignore checkpatch.  For bonus points, figure out why you
> should ignore it specifically in this case.
> .
> 

Thank you. I think I understand.

The checkpatch.pl file is a false report
because the 'loglvl' already exists.

I'd better keep printk(" %s...", loglvl, ...) still.