linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

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:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:01:27 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@...il.com>
CC:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org, lethal@...ux-sh.org,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
	Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] um: Do not use SUBARCH

Am 26.09.2013 12:53, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra:
> Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> So, what exactly is broken in upstream?
>> make defconfig works as it always did.
> 
> Auto-detection of SUBARCH, which can be done with a simple call to
> uname -m (the 90% case). The second patch I submitted prevented
> spawning xterms unnecessarily, which we discussed was a good move.

Covering only 90% of all cases is not enough.
We must not break existing setups.
That's also why my "Get rid of SUBARCH" series is not upstream.

Your second patch changed CONFIG_CON_CHAN to pts, which is ok but not
a major issue.
The xterms are also not spawning unnecessarily they spawn upon a tty device is opened.
With your patch UML create another pts. Thus, the spawning is hidden...
I did not push it upstream because it depended on your first one and as I said, it's not critical.
This does not mean that I moved it to /dev/null.
Again, the plan is to get rid of SUBARCH at all.

>> make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86 (or SUBARCH=i386) will create a defconfig for 32bit.
>> make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86_64 one for 64bit.
> 
> Yes, that's how I prepared the patch in the first place.

So, nothing is broken.

If you want "make defconfig ARCH=um" creating a defconfig for the correct arch you need
more than your first patch. Again, "Get rid of SUBARCH" series has the same goal.

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/