pnpacpi: reduce printk severity for "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of ..."

pnpacpi: reduce printk severity for "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of ..."

[Chris Wright]

[-- Attachment #1: pnpacpi-reduce-printk-severity-for-pnpacpi-exceeded-the-max-number-of.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2506 bytes --]

-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
---------------------

From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

upstream commit 33fd7afd66ffdc6addf1b085fe6403b6af532f8e 

We have been printing these messages at KERN_ERR since 2.6.24,
per http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9535

But KERN_ERR pops up on a console booted with "quiet"
and causes users to get alarmed and file bugs
about the message itself:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436589

So reduce the severity of these messages to
KERN_WARNING, which is not printed by "quiet".

This message will still be seen without "quiet",
but a lot of messages are printed in that mode
and it will be less likely to cause undue alarm.

We could go all the way to KERN_DEBUG, but this
is a real warning after all, so it seems prudent
not to require "debug" to see it.

Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
---
 drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c |    8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c
+++ b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_irqr
 	       i < PNP_MAX_IRQ)
 		i++;
 	if (i >= PNP_MAX_IRQ && !warned) {
-		printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ "
+		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ "
 				"resources: %d \n", PNP_MAX_IRQ);
 		warned = 1;
 		return;
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_dmar
 		res->dma_resource[i].start = dma;
 		res->dma_resource[i].end = dma;
 	} else if (!warned) {
-		printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of DMA "
+		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of DMA "
 				"resources: %d \n", PNP_MAX_DMA);
 		warned = 1;
 	}
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_iore
 		res->port_resource[i].start = io;
 		res->port_resource[i].end = io + len - 1;
 	} else if (!warned) {
-		printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO "
+		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO "
 				"resources: %d \n", PNP_MAX_PORT);
 		warned = 1;
 	}
@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_memr
 		res->mem_resource[i].start = mem;
 		res->mem_resource[i].end = mem + len - 1;
 	} else if (!warned) {
-		printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem "
+		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem "
 				"resources: %d\n", PNP_MAX_MEM);
 		warned = 1;
 	}

-- 

Re: pnpacpi: reduce printk severity for "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of ..."

[Nick Andrew]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 06:02:20PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> -		printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ "
> +		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ "
>  				"resources: %d \n", PNP_MAX_IRQ);

This is a good time to delete that whitespace before the newline
in this hunk plus the two following. Unless you're going to go to
dynamic memory allocation for these arrays in a month and wipe
out all this code.

Nick.

Re: pnpacpi: reduce printk severity for "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of ..."

[Chris Wright]

* Nick Andrew (nick@nick-andrew.net) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 06:02:20PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> > -		printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ "
> > +		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ "
> >  				"resources: %d \n", PNP_MAX_IRQ);
> 
> This is a good time to delete that whitespace before the newline
> in this hunk plus the two following. Unless you're going to go to
> dynamic memory allocation for these arrays in a month and wipe
> out all this code.

Not for -stable...maybe upstream, send Len a patch.

Re: pnpacpi: reduce printk severity for "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of ..."

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Wednesday 16 April 2008 07:02:20 pm Chris Wright wrote:
> -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

I don't object to the point of the patch (changing KERN_ERR to
KERN_WARNING), but there is a more serious bug lurking here that
corrupts memory, and if we're doing a -stable patch, we should
fix it.

The test is:

	if (i >= PNP_MAX_IRQ && !warned) {
		printk(...);
		warned = 1;
		return;
	}

But it should be:

	if (i >= PNP_MAX_IRQ) {
		if (!warned) {
			printk(...);
			warned = 1;
		}
		return;
	}

> --- a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c
> +++ b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_irqr
>  	       i < PNP_MAX_IRQ)
>  		i++;
>  	if (i >= PNP_MAX_IRQ && !warned) {
> -		printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ "
> +		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ "
>  				"resources: %d \n", PNP_MAX_IRQ);
>  		warned = 1;
>  		return;
> @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_dmar
>  		res->dma_resource[i].start = dma;
>  		res->dma_resource[i].end = dma;
>  	} else if (!warned) {
> -		printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of DMA "
> +		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of DMA "
>  				"resources: %d \n", PNP_MAX_DMA);
>  		warned = 1;
>  	}
> @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_iore
>  		res->port_resource[i].start = io;
>  		res->port_resource[i].end = io + len - 1;
>  	} else if (!warned) {
> -		printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO "
> +		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IO "
>  				"resources: %d \n", PNP_MAX_PORT);
>  		warned = 1;
>  	}
> @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_memr
>  		res->mem_resource[i].start = mem;
>  		res->mem_resource[i].end = mem + len - 1;
>  	} else if (!warned) {
> -		printk(KERN_ERR "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem "
> +		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of mem "
>  				"resources: %d\n", PNP_MAX_MEM);
>  		warned = 1;
>  	}
> 

[stable PATCH for 2.6.24.5 and 2.6.25] pnpacpi: fix potential corruption on "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ resources 2"

[Len Brown]

From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

PNP_MAX_IRQ is 2
If a device invokes pnpacpi_parse_allocated_irqresource() 0, 1, or 2 times, we are happy.
The 3rd time, we will fail and print "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ resources: 2"
The 4th and subsequent calls (if this ever happened) would silently scribble on
irq_resource[2], which doesn't actualy exist.

Found-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

diff --git a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c
index 2dcd196..98cbc9f 100644
--- a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c
+++ b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c
@@ -84,10 +84,12 @@ static void pnpacpi_parse_allocated_irqresource(struct pnp_resource_table *res,
 	while (!(res->irq_resource[i].flags & IORESOURCE_UNSET) &&
 	       i < PNP_MAX_IRQ)
 		i++;
-	if (i >= PNP_MAX_IRQ && !warned) {
-		printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number of IRQ "
-				"resources: %d \n", PNP_MAX_IRQ);
-		warned = 1;
+	if (i >= PNP_MAX_IRQ) {
+		if (!warned) {
+			printk(KERN_WARNING "pnpacpi: exceeded the max number"
+				" of IRQ resources: %d\n", PNP_MAX_IRQ);
+			warned = 1;
+		}
 		return;
 	}
 	/*