On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 06:37:43AM +, nia wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 02:32:23PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > OK, so the printf should never happen when the system has been properly
> > configured. In this case I have no objection.
>
> No, it will happen frequently in VMs and on non-re
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 06:37:43AM +, nia wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 02:32:23PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > OK, so the printf should never happen when the system has been properly
> > configured. In this case I have no objection.
>
> No, it will happen frequently in VMs and on non-re
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 02:32:23PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> OK, so the printf should never happen when the system has been properly
> configured. In this case I have no objection.
No, it will happen frequently in VMs and on non-recent-x86 hardware.
Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> I think this is fine, but it should be rate-limited the same way other
> messages in kern_entropy.c are rate-limited.
>
> if (ratecheck(&lasttime, &interval))
> printf("...");
I would prefer them not to be rate limited. Repeated mess
