linux-kernel - Re: [mingo@...e.hu: [git pull] headers

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:	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:29:18 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [mingo@...e.hu: [git pull] headers_check fixes]



On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> The intent of headers_check is to try to catch people who put things that
> depend on CONFIG_* stuff in exported headers (which, as we have seen, have
> been too sadly common.)  If we declare that the export process will treat all
> CONFIG_* as undefined, we do lose some coverage but potentially end up with
> cleaner code.  Not sure which is worse...

Do you think the "fix headers_check" patches spend lots of time analyzing 
things? I bet no. They just try to make the warning go away, so you don't 
actually end up with any more "coverage" anyway. Quite the reverse - 
instead of having a simple rule ("CONFIG_xyz options simply do not exist 
in user space"), you end up having ad-hoc hacks on a per-fix basis.

		Linus
--
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/