linux-kernel - Re: [linux-cifs-client] Fwd: [PATCH] Fix CIFS compilation with CONFIG

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]

Message-ID: <20081012161634.5e410c24@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:16:34 -0400
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	"Steve French" <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl,
	"linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org" 
	<linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	cooldavid@...ldavid.org,
	"samba-technical@...ts.samba.org" <samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-cifs-client] Fwd: [PATCH] Fix CIFS compilation with
 CONFIG_KEYS unset

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:57:47 -0500
"Steve French" <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:40:39 -0500
> >> "Steve French" <smfrench@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, I like Adrian/Rafael's fix better. I think we should avoid
> >> cluttering up the code with #ifdef's where possible. key_put() already
> >> is a no-op when CONFIG_KEYS is disabled. We might as well do the same
> >> thing with key_revoke().
> > I don't think it matters much - but we probably shouldn't be
> > overriding global functions.
> 
> To clarify, I like fixing it in keys.h better than overriding it in
> cifs, but in the meantime we need an ifdef in cifs until keys.h
> changes.
> 
> 
> 

It's your call, but if we're going to carry a temporary patch, then I'd
prefer to just carry the one that adds the empty key_revoke definition.
I don't think there's much benefit to changing the cifs code for this,
but I don't feel very strongly about it either way...
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
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/