linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] configfs: change depends -> select SYSFS

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]

Message-ID: <4D34DB24.5040800@oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:13:24 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
CC:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] configfs: change depends -> select SYSFS

On 01/17/11 14:10, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 10:24 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:05:54 -0800 Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 18:22 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
>>>> This is what I don't understand.
>>>>
>>>> Actually I think the whole premise of the patch (to get back to the
>>>> original topic) is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> TARGET_CORE depends on SCSI; SCSI has to have sysfs to survive ... we
>>>> just don't work without it yet we neither select nor depend on it.
>>>> SYSFS is only deselectable for embedded anyway, so I think the
>>>> configuration which generated this whole argument was likely a bogus one
>>>> and consequently, none of the patches are needed (or if they are,
>>>> they're the tip of the iceberg).
>>>>
>>>
>>> This sounds fine for TARGET_CORE, but would still leave GFS2_FS with an
>>> unmet direct dependency according to the original warning above.
>>> Unfortuately I do not recall which exactly linux-next build
>>> configuration was causing this warning to occur from the original post:
>>>
>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-next&m=129355383112997&w=2
>>>
>>> Any more thoughts here Randy..?
>>
>>
>> I've looked at GFS2 a bit now and I think that the warning is bogus:
>>
>> kconfig complains with:
>> warning: (TARGET_CORE && GFS2_FS) selects CONFIGFS_FS which has unmet direct dependencies (SYSFS)
>>
>> but the "select" is conditional:
>> config GFS2_FS
>> 	tristate "GFS2 file system support"
>> 	depends on (64BIT || LBDAF)
>> 	select DLM if GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM
>> 	select CONFIGFS_FS if GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM
>> 	select SYSFS if GFS2_FS_LOCKING_DLM
>>
>> and the same condition selects both SYSFS and CONFIGFS_FS.  Furthermore, the
>> conditional is not true, so neither of them is being selected/enabled.
>> Looks like a minor kconfig buglet to me.
>>
> 
> Ok, so Linus has pulled the CONFIGFS_FS -> select SYSFS series and it
> looks like this 'select SYSFS ...' bit for GFS2_FS can safely be dropped
> now..
> 
> Care to carry this one via your kbuild tree..?


Who are you asking?  (I don't have a kbuild tree.)

-- 
~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/