[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e7ed86066c53078ca55c1ec5c47da7b57cf2ffdf.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 10:52:32 +0200
From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>
To: Tomas Glozar <tglozar@...hat.com>
Cc: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nicolas.bouchinet@....cyber.gouv.fr, Xiu
Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@...weicloud.com>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rv: Fix boot failure when kernel lockdown is active
On Thu, 2025-09-18 at 11:48 +0200, Tomas Glozar wrote:
> čt 18. 9. 2025 v 10:36 odesílatel Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com> napsal:
> >
> > Yeah totally, I have the feeling that with the kernel there's no such a
> > thing as a "theoretical bug", kinda like a good consequence of Murphy's
> > Law.
>
> My understanding of "theoretical bug" is that it's code that is
> semantically equivalent to a bug-free code, but becomes buggy after
> doing an "innocent" change. The bug might be more or less
> "theoretical" based on how "innocent" that change is. Of course, in a
> codebase of the size of a Linux kernel, this tends to happen quite
> often, and is not always possible to get rid of completely...
Yeah good point, we are getting philosophical here :) . This wasn't a
theoretical bug then, just something you don't think will really happen (a
failure creating a sysfs directory) ... until it happens.
The fact there is a way to make that function fail on-demand (kernel lockdown),
makes it just more "real". Moral of the story, better get the compiler check
things for you (lock guards).
Anyway the fix is now upstream.
Gabriele
Powered by blists - more mailing lists