linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22 (evm)

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: <20110826100011.9213d872.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date:	Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:00:11 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22 (evm)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:39:02 -0400 Mimi Zohar wrote:

> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 22:10 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net> wrote:
> > > I think that you are going to need to do something like Arnaud suggested
> > > and use "depends on TCG_TPM=y" instead of just "depends on TCG_TPM",
> > > unless you can convince someone that this is a kconfig bug.
> > >
> > dammit... I guess there is...
> > 
> > If you consider the following Kconfig:
> > 
> > config MOD
> >         bool
> >         default y
> >         option modules
> > 
> > config EXPERIMENTAL
> >         bool
> >         default y
> > 
> > menuconfig A
> >         tristate "A"
> >         depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> > 
> > config B
> >         bool "B"
> > 
> > config B0
> >         bool
> > 
> > config C
> >         tristate "C"
> >         depends on B
> > 
> > config C0
> >         tristate
> > 
> > config D
> >         boolean "D"
> >         depends on A && B
> >         select C
> >         select C0
> > 
> > config E
> >         tristate "E"
> > 
> > config F
> >         tristate "F"
> >         select E
> > 
> > B (KEYS) allows to set C (TRUSTED_KEYS). Also, B (KEYS) and A
> > (TCG_TPM) allows to set D (EVM), which will select (C). Now,
> > menuconfig highlight the problem very well. Proceeding as following
> > A=m, B=y, C=m, E=y, F=y, we ends up having:
> > 
> >  <M> A  --->
> >  [*] B
> >  {M} C
> >  [*] D
> >  -*- E
> >  <*> F
> > 
> > which translate in the following config:
> > 
> > CONFIG_MOD=y
> > CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y
> > CONFIG_A=m
> > CONFIG_B=y
> > CONFIG_C=m
> > CONFIG_C0=m
> > CONFIG_D=y
> > CONFIG_E=y
> > CONFIG_F=y
> > 
> > I would have expected CONFIG_C and CONFIG_C0 to be 'y', just as 'E'.
> > If you remove D's dependency on 'A', everything works as expected. So
> > it would seem direct dependency state influence the state of reverse
> > dependencies...
> > 
> > Will have a look...
> > 
> >  - Arnaud
> 
> Thanks for looking into this!  Instead of changing 'TCG_TPM' to
> 'TCG_TPM=y', the dependency should be on 'TRUSTED_KEYS=y'.  Then when
> I've refactored ENCRYPTED_KEYS, removing the ENCRYPTED_KEYS dependency
> on TRUSTED_KEYS, the EVM dependency would be '(TRUSTED_KEYS=y ||
> TRUSTED_KEYS=n)'.  Do you want a temporary fix for now?

Yes, linux-next (randconfig) builds are still failing, so we need something
to prevent that.

thanks,
---
~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/