linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Support kernel/hotplug sysctl variable when !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, 07 Jun 2010 11:26:58 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
CC:	Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support kernel/hotplug sysctl variable when !CONFIG_NET

On 06/07/10 11:16, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 11:11:45AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:43:50 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 12:57:12PM +0100, Ian Abbott wrote:
>>>> From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>
>>>>
>>>> The kernel/hotplug sysctl variable (/proc/sys/kernel/hotplug file) was
>>>> made conditional on CONFIG_NET by commit
>>>> f743ca5e10f4145e0b3e6d11b9b46171e16af7ce (applied in 2.6.18) to fix
>>>> problems with undefined references in 2.6.16 when CONFIG_HOTPLUG=y &&
>>>> !CONFIG_NET, but this restriction is no longer needed.
>>
>> Ack, builds for me on x86_64 when CONFIG_NET is not enabled.
>>
>>> Why is this restriction no longer needed?  What changed?
>>
>>
>> commit cd3772e6898c6386f21d2958346d6dd57d4204f5
>> Author: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
>> Date:   Sun Nov 16 18:22:09 2008 +0800
>>
>>     kernel/ksysfs.c:fix dependence on CONFIG_NET
>>     
>>     Access to uevent_seqnum and uevent_helper does not need to
>>     depend on CONFIG_NET, so remove it.
>>     
>>     Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
>>     Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
>>     Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> 
> So something back in 2008 changed which requires a change now?

"requires" is too strong of a word to use here.  "allows" a change.

> I'm still confused, what use case calls for the original patch here
> being made?  Who wants to modify this option with CONFIG_NET disabled on
> their machine?


Are you trying to slow down on kernel patches for some reason?

Using CONFIG_NET is more restrictive than is needed here, so remove it.

-- 
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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/