linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] lib/decompress_*: only include <linux/slab.h> if STATIC is not defined

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:	Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:32:44 +0100
From:	Phillip Lougher <phillip@...gher.demon.co.uk>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@...e-electrons.com>,
	sam@...nborg.org, linux@....linux.org.uk, alain@...ff.lu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] lib/decompress_*: only include <linux/slab.h> if
 STATIC is not defined

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/04/2009 05:47 PM, Phillip Lougher wrote:
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Mon,  3 Aug 2009 16:58:16 +0200
>>> Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> These includes were added by 079effb6933f34b9b1b67b08bd4fd7fb672d16ef to
>>>> fix the build when using kmemtrace. However this is not necessary when
>>>> used to create a compressed kernel, and actually creates issues (brings
>>>> a lot of things unavailable in the decompression environment), so don't
>>>> include it if STATIC is defined.
>>>>
>>> The description "actually creates issues (brings a lot of things
>>> unavailable in the decompression environment)" is inadequate.  Please
>>> describe te problem this patch fixes more completely so that others
>>> (ie: me) can decide whether this patch is needed in 2.6.32, 2.6.31.
>>> 2.6.30, ...
>>>
>>> This patch conflicts heavily with
>>>
>>> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/bzip2-lzma-remove-nasty-uncompressed-size-hack-in-pre-boot-environment.patch
>>>
>>> What should we do about that?
>>
>> What do you normally do in this situation?  I'm happy to send a revised
>> bzip2-lzma-remove-nasty-uncompressed-size-hack-in-pre-boot-environment.patch
>>
>> that would apply cleanly on-top of Alvin's patch, but, this will obviously
>> create dependencies on his patch being applied.
>>
> 
> The general principle is that if A alone creates a more functional
> environment than B alone, then B should be applied on top of A, and vice
> versa.  This is especially so if A is a stable candidate.
> 
> It *sounds* like your patch is B here, but I am not sure from the
> description.
>

Gosh, who wants to get into the my patch is better than yours
argument.  I certainly don't...

My patch series cleans up the code and fixes a number of
rough edges (which I expect to hit when I try to make Squashfs
use the new decompression code).  Albin's looks to be adding a
new set of LZO functionality.  Regarding the conflicting
patches in question, my patch removes a hack, Albin's moves
#include <slab.h> into code covered by #ifndef STATIC, so it
doesn't pull in loads of unnecessary definitions when the
file is being built in the pre-boot environment.

I personally can't decide which is A or B.

Phillip

--
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/