[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 21:56:15 +0100
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
Cc: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: Stop printing the virtual memory layout
> On Mar 5, 2020, at 9:52 PM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 10:56:29AM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 04:49:22PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> On 3/5/20 4:46 PM, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>>>> Not really too late. I can do s/pr_info/pr_devel and resubmit.
>>>>
>>>> parisc for eg actually hides this in #if 0 rather than deleting the
>>>> code.
>>>>
>>>> Kees, you fine with that?
>>>
>>> But wasn't it removed for all the other architectures already? Or are these
>>> changes not in Linus' tree yet?
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>
>> The ones mentioned in the commit message, yes, those are long gone. But
>> I don't see any reason why the remaining ones (there are 6 left that I
>> submitted patches just now for) couldn't switch to pr_devel instead.
>
> If you do happen to re-send with pr_debug() instead, feel free to add
> my ack to that series as well.
Since it already got removed for most other architectures, I don’t think it makes much sense to keep it for consistency.
I just didn’t understand why it was made configurable for debugging purposes in the first place.
Also, many distributions disable access to the kernel buffer for unprivileged users anyway.
Adrian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
