linux-kernel - 2.6.28-rc4-mmotm1110 - you gotta be kidding me...

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:55:37 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: 2.6.28-rc4-mmotm1110 - you gotta be kidding me...

Somebody's been hitting the phunky pharmaceuticals in the last 4 days,
because this ball-of-joy snuck into linux-next.patch sometime between
-mmotm1106 and --mmotm1110.

Seen in a 'make silentallconfig'

  Single-depth WCHAN output (SCHED_NO_NO_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER) [Y/n/?] (NEW) ?

  Calculate simpler /proc/<PID>/wchan values. If this option
  is disabled then wchan values will recurse back to the
  caller function. This provides more accurate wchan values,
  at the expense of slightly more scheduling overhead.

  If in doubt, say "Y".

So if I say 'y', is that a request to disable it, or enable it?  And
what exactly do I get if I vote *against* 'more accurate wchan values'?
Do I get everybody having the same wchan pointing somewhere in the
scheduler code, because that's where __builtin_return_address() points?

And please - a triple negative in the Kconfig variable name?  This has
gotta be a winner for poor taste in variable naming...

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped