[fedora-arm] Broken sha512sum in coreutils / forcing alignment fixup and logging in initscripts

[Gordan Bobic]

On 01/08/2011 11:37 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 11:14 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
>> On 01/08/11 11:10, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>> On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 10:30 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
>>>> On 01/08/11 09:54, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>>>> On 01/08/2011 02:49 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I would like to offer a counter-proposal - no package is accepted into
>>>>> Fedora (ARM?) until it stops generating misalignment warnings. That way
>>>>
>>>> I think your proposal is a bad idea.
>>>
>>> FWIW I think you're talking at cross-purposes. There's no reason there
>>> can't be a policy favoring stuff that doesn't generate miss-alignment
>>> warnings (whether outright denial, or just some kind of part of package
>>> reviews, and no reason this isn't a generic Fedora problem rather than
>>> being ARM specific), have software like abrt pick it up, and still do a
>>> fixup+warn setting in the kernel. You won't get silent breakage, and
>>> you'll send a message that software needs to be fixed.
>>
>> As a "counter proposal" as it was introduced, instead of Chris' scheme,
>> it's a bad idea.
>
> Agreed. It should be "in addition", not a counter proposal.

See my argument for 1 vs 3. It's easy enough for the user to change this 
themselves, but defaults should be providing more pressure for fixing 
things, not less compare to the current default (0).

>> Having a policy that alignment faults should be avoided itself is fine,
>> but it is not a replacement for the good assertive action made by
>> changing the runtime policy.  In fact I don't think we get to this point
>> with so few fixups unless that was already the general policy not just
>> here but in the upstreams.
>
> I think that might be more luck than intention. A lot of stuff is being
> developed on three main architectures that take care of miss-alignment.

Maybe so, but that shouldn't be an excuse for not fixing this sort of 
thing, especially since ARM looks set to become much more popular as a 
desktop and server platform.

>> When the initscripts set the runtime action to be fixup + log, those
>> faults will actually become more visible to everyone and help detection
>> and removal of faults overall.
>
> This is true. Warnings will motivate fixing stuff. Still, doesn't hurt
> to have some kind of "policy" to promote this. I'm only really concerned
> because none of the primary Fedora arches are bitten by this, so it's
> easy for this to continue slipping under the radar.

Agreed - and such a policy would probably benefit from not having the 
issue silently fixed. Silently fixing the issue at a performance penalty 
as a policy, taken to it's final logical conclusion, means that you 
might just as well just tell the user to run it in a qemu VM on x86.

Gordan