On Tue 2021-01-26 12:40:32, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:39:12 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:30:02 -0600
> > Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/26/21 11:14 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > If it was a boot option, I would personally be for leaving hashing enabled by
> > > > default, with opt-in boot option to disable it.
> > >
> > > A boot option would solve all my problems. I wouldn't need to recompile
> > > the kernel, and it would apply to all variations of printk.
> >
> > Should it be called "make-printk-insecure"
Nit: This makes me feel that printk() might break (block) the system.
Please, make it more clear that it is about unveiling some secret
information, something like:
"non-secret-printk"
"non-confidental-printk"
"unretricted-printk"
I do not mind about the words order or using the
"make-printk-non-secret" form.
> And even if we make this a boot time option, perhaps we should still
> include that nasty dmesg notice, which will let people know that the kernel
> has unhashed values.
+1
Best Regards,
Petr
