linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL invisible and default

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: <20121003214325.GE637@somewhere>
Date:	Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:43:37 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL invisible and default

On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 03:36:53PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 07:46:18PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>  > > it in the kernel tree, unless we wanted people to use the option?
>  > 
>  > A solution could be to add that option under CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL and specify
>  > that it must only be enabled by developers for specific reasons (overhead,
>  > security). CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING falls into that category, right?
>  > 
>  > We have CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS that is a specific case. It's an intermediate state
>  > before we implement a true CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL. But the option is useless on its
>  > own for users. Worse, it introduces a real overhead. OTOH we want it to be upstream
>  > to make the development of full tickless feature more incremental.
>  > 
>  > Perhaps we should put that under CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL.
> 
> Overloading an existing config option for something unrelated seems unpleasant to me.
> It will only take a few people to start doing this, before it turns into a landslide
> where everyone ends up with DEBUG_KERNEL set.
> And what of people who already have DEBUG_KERNEL set ?

Sorry, by wording wasn't clear. I didn't mean overloading CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL but
rather depend on it.

> 
> Just state what you wrote above in the kconfig.
> Currently, RCU_USER_QS says nothing about the fact that it's work in progress.

Yeah I much prefer that. I'll add some details on the Kconfig.

> The missing part that I don't have an answer for however, is what happens
> when you deem this production ready? Distro maintainers won't notice the
> kconfig text changing. But perhaps that's a good thing, and will lead to things
> only being enabled when people explicitly ask for them in distros.

That Kconfig option is likely going to disappear inside a new CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL that
will enables individual features like RCU user mode and stuffs.

And if it stays, it will be enabled by CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL. So it's not an option
anybody will ever have to deal with directly.

> Alternatively, if you really do want to go the path of a new config option,
> perhaps CONFIG_NOT_DISTRO_READY would spell things out more clearly.
> EXPERIMENTAL is such a wasteland it would take too much manpower to audit
> every case, and update accordingly, but scorching the earth and starting
> afresh might be feasible.

CONFIG_STAGING already does that kind of thing I guess. Although I suspect people
are reluctant with core features in -staging.
--
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/