linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 01/22] Generic show

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:	Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:33:42 +0200
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	davem@...emloft.net, hskinnemoen@...el.com, cooloney@...nel.org,
	starvik@...s.com, dhowells@...hat.com, ysato@...rs.sf.net,
	takata@...ux-m32r.org, geert@...ux-m68k.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
	kyle@...isc-linux.org, paulus@...ba.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	lethal@...ux-sh.org, jdike@...toit.com, miles@....org,
	chris@...kel.net, rmk@....linux.org.uk, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/22] Generic show_mem() implementation

Hi,

Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> e.g. we currently have this in arch/s390/Kconfig:
>> >> 
>> >> config S390
>> >>         def_bool y
>> >>         select HAVE_OPROFILE
>> >>         select HAVE_KPROBES
>> >>         select HAVE_KRETPROBES
>> >> 
>> >> just add a select HAVE_GENERIC_SHOWMEM or something like that in the arch
>> >> specific patches.
>> > Seconded.
>> > See Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt for a few more hints
>> > how to do it.
>> 
>> After more thinking about it, wouldn't it be better to have
>> HAVE_ARCH_SHOW_MEM in mm/Kconfig and let archs with their own show_mem()
>> select it?  Because there are far more archs that use the generic
>> version than those having their own.
>
> Positive logic is almost always simpler to grasp.
> And the usual way to do this is to let arch's select what they
> use.
> We do not want to have a situation where in most cases we select
> a generic version but in some oddball case we select to have
> a local version.

I can not follow you.  Of course the arch selects what they use.  But
they should not _all_ have to be flagged with an extra select.  So what
default-value are you arguing for?

	Hannes
--
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/