linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/4] Removing dead code

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:11:02 +0200
From:	Christian Dietrich <qy03fugy@...d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	vamos-dev@...informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] Removing dead code

Hi all!
       
        As part of the VAMOS[0] research project at the University of
Erlangen we are looking at multiple integrity errors in linux'
configuration system.

        I've been running a check on the arch/frv sourcetree for
config Items not defined in Kconfig and found 4 such cases. Sourcecode
blocks depending on these Items are not reachable from a vanilla
kernel -- dead code. I've seen such dead blocks made on purpose
e.g. while integrating new features into the kernel but generally
they're just useless.

        Each of the patches in this patchset removes on such dead
config Item, I'd be glad if you consider applying them. I've been
doing deeper analysis of such issues before and can do so again but
I'm not so sure they were fastly usefull.


I wasn't able to build a vanilla kernel allyesconfig, therefore these
patches might break something. But because they are just removing dead
code it is unlikely.

Another problem i encountered was CONFIG_PREEMPT, which isn't
selectable in frv Kconfig because it doesn include
kernel/Kconfig.preempt. But there ist plenty of evidence for me, that
there is preemption support in frv.


        Please keep me informed of this patch getting confirmed /
merged so we can keep track of it.

Regards

        Christian Dietrich

[0] http://vamos1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/

Christian Dietrich (4):
  arch/frv: Removing dead RAMKERNEL config option
  arch/frv: Removing dead HEARTBEAT config option
  arch/frv: Removing dead NO_KERNEL_MSG config option
  arch/frv: Removing dead DEBUG_STACK_USAGE config option

 arch/frv/include/asm/bug.h         |    4 ----
 arch/frv/include/asm/thread_info.h |   11 -----------
 arch/frv/kernel/debug-stub.c       |    2 --
 arch/frv/kernel/time.c             |    6 ------
 arch/frv/mm/init.c                 |   17 -----------------
 5 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)

--
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/