linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/4] CONFIG

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:57:33 +0530
From:	"Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To:	"Chris Snook" <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc:	"clameter@....com" <clameter@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] CONFIG_STABLE: Define it

On 7/20/07, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com> wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > [ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
> >
> >
> > On 5/31/07, clameter@....com <clameter@....com> wrote:
> >> Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> >> [...]
> >>  menu "General setup"
> >>
> >> +config STABLE
> >> +       bool "Stable kernel"
> >> +       help
> >> +         If the kernel is configured to be a stable kernel then various
> >> +         checks that are only of interest to kernel development will be
> >> +         omitted.
> >> +
> >
> >
> > "A programmer who uses assertions during testing and turns them off
> > during production is like a sailor who wears a life vest while drilling
> > on shore and takes it off at sea."
> >                                                - Tony Hoare
> >
> >
> > Probably you meant to turn off debug _output_ (and not _checks_)
> > with this config option? But we already have CONFIG_FOO_DEBUG_BAR
> > for those situations ...
>
> There are plenty of validation and debugging features in the kernel that go WAY
> beyond mere assertions, often imposing significant overhead (particularly when
> you scale up) or creating interfaces you'd never use unless you were doing
> kernel development work.  You really do want these features completely removed
> from production kernels.

As for entire such "development/debugging-related features", most (all, really)
should anyway have their own config options.

> The point of this is not to remove one-line WARN_ON and BUG_ON checks (though we
> might remove a few from fast paths), but rather to disable big chunks of
> debugging code that don't implement anything visible to a production workload.

Oh yes, but it's still not clear to me why or how a kernel-wide "CONFIG_STABLE"
or "CONFIG_RELEASE" would help ... what's wrong with finer granularity
"CONFIG_xxx_DEBUG_xxx" kind of knobs?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/