linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.29.x+ FIX] CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING should not depend on 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]

Date:	Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:45:11 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tomá__ Szépe <szepe@...erecords.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.29.x+ FIX] CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING should not depend on
 CONFIG_BLOCK

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:46:30 +0200
Tom____ Sz__pe <szepe@...erecords.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Fix: CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING should not depend on CONFIG_BLOCK.
> Patch against 2.6.29.*, 2.6.30, current.
> 
> inlined please find a trivial fix that makes it possible to run
> complete systems out of an initramfs on current kernels again
> (this last worked on 2.6.27.*).
> 

Please describe the problem more completely.  Why is it not possible? 
What goes wrong?  Your initramfs kernel has CONFIG_BLOCK=n?

Also, please do include a Signed-off-by: with each patch - see
Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description.

Thanks.

--
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/