linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 3 (mm/Kconfig)

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]

Date:	Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:28:03 +0100
From:	Sima Baymani <sima.baymani@...il.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	tangchen@...fujitsu.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, aquini@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gang.chen@...anux.com,
	aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	darrick.wong@...cle.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 3 (mm/Kconfig)

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Sima Baymani wrote:
>
>> When generating randconfig, got following warning:
>>
>> warning: (HWPOISON_INJECT && MEM_SOFT_DIRTY) selects PROC_PAGE_MONITOR
>> which has unmet direct dependencies (PROC_FS && MMU)
>>
>> I would have liked to form a patch for it, but not sure whether to
>> simply add PROC_FS && MMU as dependencies for HWPOISON_INJECT and
>> MEM_SOFT_DIRTY, or if some other fix would be more suitable?
>>
>
> CONFIG_HWPOISON_INJECT is unrelated, it already depends on CONFIG_PROC_FS.
>
> CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONITOR is obviously only useful for CONFIG_PROC_FS, so
> the correct fix would be to make CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY depend on
> CONFIG_PROC_FS.
>
> Want to try sending a patch?

You bet!

However, I have the slightest confusion:
I tested what you suggested by running "make oldconfig", and it does
eliminate the error. However, I can't figure out why it's enough with
adding the dependency for PROC_FS in MEM_SOFT_DIRTY, if
PROC_PAGE_MONITOR depends on both?

-Sima
--
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/