linux-kernel - Re: ARM defconfig files

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:	Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:07:41 +0200
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Eric Miao <eric.miao@...onical.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: ARM defconfig files

Hi

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 01:50:47PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net> wrote:
> >> I think Uwe could provide his script and add it to the kernel tree.
> >> Then all architectures could benefit from it.  Having the defconfig
> >> files contain only those options which are different from the defaults
> >> is certainly more readable, even on x86.
> >
> > Quite possible. But maintainers would need to be on the lookout of
> > people actually using the script, and refusing to apply patches that
> > re-introduce the whole big thing.
> 
> I can (partially) speak for powerpc.  If ARM uses this approach, then
> I think we can do the same.  After the defconfigs are trimmed, I
> certainly won't pick up any more full defconfigs.
I just restarted my script on the powerpc defconfigs basing on rc5, I
assume they complete in a few days time.
 
> Of course, I'm also operating under the assumption that this is a
> temporary measure until one of the better solutions is implemented.
ack

>                                                                      I
> do suspect that the trimmed defconfigs will tend to be unstable and
> will still require manual maintenance.  I think the Kconfig fragments
> approach is the most promising if the dependencies issue can be
> solved.
I don't understand what you mean with unstable here.  They are sensible
to changed defaults in the Kconfig files which you can consider to be
good or bad.

And ack, I like the Kconfig approach, too.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/