linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 16/20] nova-core: Add support for VBIOS ucode extraction for boot

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: <CANiq72=daoTUH0qdEuTLtgaDsdNj=RVvX4fn2xjDtQZn7-xYcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:03:32 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 
	Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, 
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, 
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, 
	Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...dia.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, 
	Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Shirish Baskaran <sbaskaran@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 16/20] nova-core: Add support for VBIOS ucode
 extraction for boot

On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 11:05 PM Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Not sure this makes sense - debug_assertions is supposed to be about
> assertions, we probably shouldn't try to use it for other things (especially
> since we've already got dev_dbg! here)

Yeah, we added it in `pr_debug!`, but I think we should match the C
side for that one instead.

In general, we probably want to say that enabling `debug_assertions`
should ideally have no "visible" effect on the program if there are no
bugs (modulo performance etc.; and it should have a loud effect if
there is indeed a bug :)

Cheers,
Miguel