linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] More accessible usage of custom flags

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:37:38 +0300
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Nicholas Marquez <nicholas.marquez@...ech.edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] More accessible usage of custom flags

On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 09:52:51PM -0500, Nicholas Marquez wrote:
> I submitted this patch to the zen-sources Gentoo community and got
> much praise and has promptly been included.  This kind of thing have
> very likely already been done in other patchsets, but I haven't seen
> it around,

Probably it wasn't done by other patchsets. ;-)

> so I've gone ahead and made one.  The idea is that one can
> enable -Os and various other options transparently through standard
> kernel configuration, so why bar the builder from any other options to
> pass on to gcc (et al)?

Examples, please. Which compiler flags do you want to add to your .config?
Speaking of -Os, it's CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE .

> One can indeed add one's own flags in the
> Makefile, but this method is a good deal friendlier.  Granted, this
> could be misused by ricers and idiots, but they'll get themselves into
> that mess all of their own fault and we'll all go on our merry ways.

No, they will come here and report bugs they created themselves. And
there will be a policy: "too long CONFIG_CUSTOM_CFLAGS -- go away" and
so on.

> It just seems that much use could be made out of this, both in terms
> of (sane) optimizations

Sane optimizations should be added to main Makefile. 

> and easier access to enhanced debugging
> opportunities.

Which ones exactly?

> I see that people who build a Linux kernel are largely of two types:
> ~the ones that understand and know enough that they could, with some
> nudging and learning, become bonafide kernel devs and
> ~the ones that understand it to some very basic degree and can get
> through configuring it without too much trouble (though with limited
> understanding)
> I believe one of the very simple things that can be addressed is to
> make the kernel more "accessible" without harming its integrity or
> functionality.  This involves trying to fill the gap between those two
> types of people, allowing there to be more understanding,
> configuration, and (down the line) development opportunities within
> the kernel to better ease these people into learning enough to begin
> contributing back.

> More developers can only be a Good Thing (tm).

In general, wrong.
--
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/