linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 103/104] mm: remove depends on CONFIG

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: <CAGXu5j+dZba-wQP-=6LhkS_Zgnfwosjt4iz9z6S4tW4vzN1afw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 Nov 2012 06:55:46 -0800
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 103/104] mm: remove depends on CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:57 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> >>> diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
>> >>> index a3f8ddd..679945e 100644
>> >>> --- a/mm/Kconfig
>> >>> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
>> >>> @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
>> >>>  config SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL
>> >>>       def_bool y
>> >>> -     depends on EXPERIMENTAL || ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL
>> >>>
>> >>>  choice
>> >>>       prompt "Memory model"
>> >>
>> >> I thought you agreed to only drop EXPERIMENTAL here in
>> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135103415901094 and leave
>> >> ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL, which you've orphaned with the above, for phase
>> >> two of your effort?
>> >
>> > Ah! Yes, thanks. I'll restore that.
>>
>> Wait, no. This is an "OR". ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL has no affect on
>> SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL if EXPERIMENTAL is always considered on. My
>> proposal was to deal with ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL separately. Did I
>> misunderstand something?
>>
>
> We're rehashing the same discussion as before?  I left the earlier thread
> with the understanding that this would become
>
>         depends on ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL
>
> and then fix ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL when people complain for
> configurations that actually allow you to configure the memory model.  It
> never should have been short-circuited by EXPERIMENTAL in the first place,
> but enabling it to be configurable for everybody and orphaning
> ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL doesn't sound appropriate.  I think we should do
> some due diligence in actually making ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL work so
> people are presented with a config that will work on their machines.
>
> (This is independent of the rest of the series, we can certainly remove
> EXPERIMENTAL regardless of this decision, I simply think we should be
> leaving ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL to prevent users with
> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=n from being presented with a new ability to change
> their memory model that actually doesn't work for them.)

Okay, that's cool. I misunderstood what you'd wanted here. I'll leave
ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL in place.

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/