linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Allow to combine multiple W= levels

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: <2b5d75ba05bd7889ac80514015e36ad2.squirrel@www.skyhub.de>
Date:	Mon, 2 May 2011 20:03:05 +0200 (CEST)
From:	boris@...en8.de
To:	"Arnaud Lacombe" <lacombar@...il.com>
Cc:	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	"Michal Marek" <mmarek@...e.cz>, valdis.kletnieks@...edu,
	bp@...en8.de, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Allow to combine multiple W= levels

I'm really getting tired of this!

> Because you are not even sure of what you submitted is good for the kernel
> ?

No, because we need to get a feeling of what makes sense for all these
options first. I'd rather do the learning-by-doing thing here and
implement what makes sense than braindead frameworks.

> I think this has been done completely wrong, first all the extra
> warnings got in (without a detailed impact implied by each one),

WTF? http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=130346037604547&w=2

No one else did check those and said, ACK/NACK so we went in with this
initial splitting first.

> then it was decided to be split in several level (which I proposed on
> Feb 20th, but was originally rejected by Borislav Petkov),

Of course, because it made no sense at the time. Sam added it later with
his proposal patch.

> then, well, some may need to be removed because they are not good for
> Linux.

have you even tried all those options and come up with concrete
suggestions on which options should go in and which shouldn't, and for
what reasons? I don't think so. So until you do, I don't care what you
have to say.

[snip a bunch of bullshit]

> Now, the drawback of your comment is that when it will be time to
> change the interface, some will object because it will have been
> started to be used by third party scripts, and as authors of third
> party script, it is a PITA to have to check the kernel version to know
> if I should W=1,2,3, or W=123 or if W=3 includes W=1 ...

This is exactly why we're trying to get a feeling of this by _running_
it and _then_ _bitching_ about it. And this is for DEVELOPERS only - if
they've introduced it in their scripts, then they should be able to fix
any changes very easily.

--
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/