Re: Adjustments to userland for a quieter startup (RC system)

On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 17:42:48 -0800
Chris <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> wrote:

> On 2025-02-01 16:18, Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 12:16 AM Steven Harms (High-Security Mail)
> > <sgharms@stevengharms.com> wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >> I have created https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/pull/1582 in an 
> >> effort to quiet down some of the chattiness of module linking and network 
> >> diagnostics on startup. I'm used to working in a git-based workflow and saw 
> >> no action on the PR, so I thought I would notify here. If that's not the 
> >> correct procedure, please advise.
> >> Thanks for all the work everyone on the list does!
> >> Steven
> > 
> > Thanks @sgharms :-) I am against the change in current form because:
> > * The concept may be useful for someone but it shall be a manually
> > selectable option like `rc_mute` (in analog to `boot_mute`) and not a
> > default. Maybe `rc_loglevel` that can get `silent, error, warning,
> > info, verbose, debug` levels to rc scripts and services? Change does
> > not provide a choice.
> > * Boot log messages are extremely useful, they contain important
> > diagnostic messages, these need to be logged even if silenced, these
> > cannot be just sent to `/dev/null`. Change alters (breaks) logging.
> > * Why not just put a boot logo image if you really do not want to see
> > the boot messages? It will provide better user experience as expected
> > but will not break the diagnostic information that are usually useful.
> > 
> > My 2 cents :-)
> I'm in complete agreement with Tomek. This (proposed) change has security
> implications. One gets used to the messages that scroll by. Which makes it
> easier to notice different ones, which might implicate security related
> problems. "Ignorance is bliss". But has its cost. While I can see a possible
> interest by some for this change. I think 1) it should never be default,
> 2) the boot logo option already exists, and easily addresses the "noisiness"
> complaint some may have.
> 
> Thanks for your interest.
> 
> -- 
> sent from a device written from and running on FreeBSD

+1.

Some (especially IoTs / set top boxes) would want no messages unless
unrecoverable error happenes, but OTOH, some (mainly developers and
some admins) would be feeling even current verbose logging is
insufficient. (Possibly want all dtrace probes to be printed in some
cases?)

So adding new log levels (including no massages) would be nice, but
forcing no messages is not a good way to go.

-- 
Tomoaki AOKI    <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>