linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:26:10 +0100 (CET)
From:	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, 7eggert@....de,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, davem@...emloft.net,
	jengelh@...putergmbh.de, devzero@....de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bunk@...nel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> wrote:

> > The question is whether the size of the Unix domain sockets support is
> > worth the complexity of yet another config option that we expose to
> > the user.  For the embedded world, OK, maybe they want to save 14k of
> > non-swappable memory.  But for the non-embedded world, given the 117k
> > mandatory memory usage of sysfs, or the 124k memory usage of the core
> > networking stack, never mind the 3 megabytes of memory used by objects
> > in the kernel subdirectory, it's not clear that it's worth worrying
> > over 14k of memory, especially when many Unix programs assume
> > that Unix Domain Sockets are present.
> 
> That would make sense if we were proposing to get rid of the CONFIG_UNIX
> question altogether for !CONFIG_EMBEDDED.

Exactly this is what my patch does: The question is not to be displayed 
unless EMBEDDED, and the default is changed to y.

>  However, the proposal here is
> merely to eliminate the modular option but the CONFIG_UNIX prompt itself
> will remain even without CONFIG_EMBEDDED.
> 
> This I think is quite pointless.

That's what another patch would do. I decided that s/tristate/bool/ is 
something completely different from adding the default and hiding the 
option, and that I'd avoid this discussion by not eliminating UNIX=m.

-- 
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
96. That's SOOOOO bizarre.
--
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/