| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090615215746.GC10235@louise.pinerecords.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:57:46 +0200 From: Tomáš Szépe <szepe@...erecords.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> 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 > > 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? Precisely. Without this patch and with CONFIG_BLOCK unset, CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING is forced to "n", which makes it impossible to run things as elementary as "mount", they'll all fail with "flock(): not implemented" and similar. I believe this is an apparent inconsistency between real code dependencies (locks.o does not need the block layer compiled to successfully link) and config symbol dependencies. > Also, please do include a Signed-off-by: with each patch - see > Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description. Ah, sorry, I haven't submitted a patch in years. -- Tomáš Szépe <szepe@...erecords.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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists