linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is no longer experimental

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:	Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:50:05 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is no longer experimental

Le lundi 09 juillet 2012 à 09:56 +0200, Jean Delvare a écrit :
> As for options still depending on EXPERIMENTAL when they no longer
> should, this can partly be explained when the EXPERIMENTAL dependency
> doesn't show up in the short description. This is the case of
> CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR. As everybody has CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL enabled,
> nobody notices the dependency.

Sorry, I got it the wrong way around (not that it necessarily matters
for the general picture): CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR no longer depends on
CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL, but it does still have "(EXPERIMENTAL)" in its
short description. So there is no excuse for us not noticing, assuming
the feature is really no longer experimental.

-- 
Jean Delvare
Suse L3

--
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/