linux-kernel - Re: Ingo, no more kconfig patches

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, 4 May 2008 10:47:08 +0300
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Ingo, no more kconfig patches

On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 11:54:11PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 01:03:30 +0300, Adrian Bunk said:
> > On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 11:52:14PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > My larger point is that this kconfig tool bug breeds a constant stream 
> > > of avoidable breakages, which causes lost manpower and causes a stream 
> > > of trivial patches hindering maintainers all around the tree. Because 
> > > every such trivial patch has to be reviewed, tested, it clogs the commit 
> > > logs, etc.
> > > 
> > > So the more trivial patches we _avoid_ having to do in the future, the 
> > > better. I'm not sure why you are even arguing against this this rather 
> > > simple point - your arguments are rather hard to understand. Wouldnt you 
> > > be happier if a whole category of trivial breakages was avoided and if 
> > > you didnt have to deal with and waste your time on that category of 
> > > trivial patches anymore?
> > > 
> > > Most of the time reoccuring trivial patches are an indicator of some 
> > > deeper structural problem - as in this case.
> > 
> > Your conclusions are based on an assumption that isn't true.
> > 
> > "trivial patches" are the patches you send.
> > 
> > But they are often bogus.
> > 
> > Fixing these issues properly often requires a deeper understanding of 
> > both kconfig and the dependencies of the underlying code.
> 
> I suspect that Ingo is however correct

Ingo claims the problem was trivial since the patches were trivial.

But fact is they aren't trivial - as you can e.g. see on Ingos patch 
that started this thread, and that was for the completely wrong place.

> - although a *proper* fix of one of
> these bugs requires human-intelligence to figure out what's *really* intended,
> the kconfig program *does* have enough information available to issue a a clear
> warning:
> 
> "Yo doodz - I don't know *what* you intended here, but this SELECT is just
> waiting to sink its teeth into somebody's posterior.  You might want to fix it
> somehow before somebody needs rabies shots..."
>...

And what do you want to do in such a case?

Kconfig is a user interface, and we actually need such cases you want to 
warn for for getting a good UI.

We already know what can cause problems.

But as far as I know there are no such problems users actually ran into 
in recent stable kernels - and most of the problems (like the one in 
this thread) are pathological cornercases you only see with randconfig.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/