linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL invisible and default

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, 8 Oct 2012 15:07:24 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL invisible and default

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 04:18:54PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 09:30:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>
>>  > > I think Kconfig is mostly what distro would like to use the thing is
>>  > > the Kconfig text needs to be there upfront when its merged, not two
>>  > > months later, since then it too late for a distro to notice.
>>  > >
>>  > > I'd bet most distros would read the warnings, but in a lot of cases
>>  > > the warning don't exist until its too late.
>>  >
>>  > In the case of CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS you are quite right, the warning
>>  > should have been there from the beginning and was not.  I suppose you
>>  > could argue that the warning was not sufficiently harsh in the case of
>>  > CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ, but either way it did get ignored:
>>
>> Maybe if we had a universally agreed upon tag for kconfig, like
>> "distro recommendation: N" that would make things obvious, and also allow
>> those of us unfortunate enough to maintain distro kernels to have something
>> to easily grep for.  This would also catch the case when you eventually (hopefully)
>> flip from an N to a Y.
>>
>> There will likely still be some distros that will decide they know better
>> (and I'm pretty sure eventually I'll find reason to do so myself), but it at least
>> gives the feature maintainer the "I told you so" clause.
>>
>> Something we do quite often for our in-development kernels is enable something
>> that's shiny, new and unproven, and then when we branch for a release, we turn
>> it back off.  It would be great if a lot of this kind of thing could be more automated.
>
> One approach would be to have CONFIG_DISTRO, so that experimental
> features could use "depends on !DISTRO", but also to have multiple
> "BLEEDING" symbols.  For example, given a CONFIG_DISTRO_BLEEDING_HPC
> and CONFIG_DISTRO_BLEEDING_RT, CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS might eventually
> use the following clause:
>
>         depends on !DISTRO || DISTRO_BLEEDING_HPC || DISTRO_BLEEDING_RT
>
> A normal distro would define DISTRO, a distro looking to provide bleeding-edge
> HPC or real-time features would also define DISTRO_BLEEDING_HPC or
> DISTRO_BLEEDING_RT, respectively.
>
> Does that make sense, or am I being overly naive?

I think we should avoid any global configs that disable things. We'll
just end up in the same place with distros again.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/