linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Support compiling out madvise and fadvise

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, 22 Sep 2014 18:47:40 +0200
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Support compiling out madvise and fadvise

On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 09:11 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Many embedded systems will not need these syscalls, and omitting them
> saves space.  Add a new EXPERT config option CONFIG_ADVISE_SYSCALLS
> (default y) to support compiling them out.

general question: if a user chooses CONFIG_ADVISE_SYSCALLS=n (or any
config option related to tinyfication) and breaks the system/workload...
will that be acceptable for a kernel pov? In other words, what's the
degree of responsibility the user will have when choosing such builds?

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/