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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1211052152250.11829@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:57:33 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
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, 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.)
--
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/