linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jinchao Wang <wangjinchao600@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@kernel.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] module: signing: Use pr_err for signature rejection
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 09:57:52 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <80cee152-a9b0-431c-bfe4-333c28f83c02@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <156fa755-6937-4df1-b995-99a2cc4bbb0a@kernel.org>

On 9/2/25 02:18, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> On 29/08/2025 10.49, Jinchao Wang wrote:
>> Make module signature rejection messages more visible by using pr_err
>> instead of pr_notice.
> 
> Can you elaborate a bit more? Why is this needed?
> 
> IMO, I don't think making it more visible is enough rational to increase the
> level.

Thank you for the feedback.

When using dmesg, pr_err is displayed in red, pr_warn in yellow, and
pr_notice/pr_info in the default color. This makes pr_err more visible
to users.

In the kernel tree, there are around 4161 pr_err calls across 20000
files, compared to 276 pr_notice calls across 827 files. From reviewing
them, pr_notice is typically used in default or informational branches,
while pr_err is mostly used in error paths.

Since this rejection path returns -EKEYREJECTED and prevents the
operation from proceeding, it aligns more closely with other uses of
pr_err than with pr_notice. For these reasons, I believe pr_err is the
appropriate choice here.

-- 
Best regards,
Jinchao

  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-02  1:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-08-29  8:49 [PATCH v3 0/4] module: logging and code improvements Jinchao Wang
2025-08-29  8:49 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] module: signing: Use pr_err for signature rejection Jinchao Wang
2025-09-01  9:25   ` Petr Pavlu
2025-09-01 18:18   ` Daniel Gomez
2025-09-02  1:57     ` Jinchao Wang [this message]
2025-08-29  8:49 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] module: show why force load fails Jinchao Wang
2025-09-01  9:26   ` Petr Pavlu
2025-09-01 18:29   ` Daniel Gomez
2025-09-02  2:06     ` Jinchao Wang
2025-08-29  8:49 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] module: centralize no-versions force load check Jinchao Wang
2025-09-01  9:30   ` Petr Pavlu
2025-08-29  8:49 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] module: separate vermagic and livepatch checks Jinchao Wang
2025-09-01  9:34   ` Petr Pavlu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=80cee152-a9b0-431c-bfe4-333c28f83c02@gmail.com \
    --to=wangjinchao600@gmail.com \
    --cc=da.gomez@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
    --cc=petr.pavlu@suse.com \
    --cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).