<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - Kernel tainted even when given option is unsupported, with an incorrect taint flag" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111918#c7">Comment # 7</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - Kernel tainted even when given option is unsupported, with an incorrect taint flag" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111918">bug 111918</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com" title="Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>"> Joonas Lahtinen</a> <pre>If an unsafe module parameter is set (like you have enable_guc), the bugs should not be reported to upstream Bugzilla. That's the right signal to give to the user, regardless if the kernel was succesfully able to load all the firmwares or not for that specific boot. The kernel triggers an unsupported codepath when you enable the option. That modparam checking code is not from i915, we're just using what core kernel provides at kernel/params.c. So the discussion would have to be at core kernel level. And I think it might be hard sell to skip tainting the kernel when the unsafe modparams don't have an effect. Not least because it's hard to define what is to have an effect, as in your case two NOTICE level messages get printed to the dmesg. That would already be picked up by many tools set up to monitor the dmesg. That'd be a lot of work just to support a special case when the user happens to have unsafe module parameters at cmdline which don't happen to activate on that specific boot. Whereas the user should not have any unsafe module parameters on the cmdline to begin with, and the problem can be removed by removing the cmdline option. And finally, I think the rationale behind adding user taint for user supplied cmdline parameter makes much sense. The documentation could be fixed to reflect that cmdline is a possible origin of the user taint? I'm sure a such patch would get accepted to core kernel.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>