linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command

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: <CAGXu5jKqiKcTAp5GdL02O2hxA7mEqyhGKyEqEJ1afFXyLtCVvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:45:33 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Wang Long <long.wanglong@...wei.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, dvhart@...radead.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>, cov@...eaurora.org,
	bobby prani <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
	tyler baker <tyler.baker@...aro.org>,
	Tim Bird <tim.bird@...ymobile.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	andrej skvortzov <andrej.skvortzov@...il.com>,
	sjayaram@...mai.com, treding@...dia.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	naresh kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
	alexey kodanev <alexey.kodanev@...cle.com>,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, wanglong@...qinren.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 03:16 +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Sep 27, 2015, at 10:10 PM, Wang Long long.wanglong@...wei.com wrote:
>>
>> > Some test's Makefile using "$(RM)" while the other's
>> > using "rm -f". It is better to use one of them in all
>> > tests.
>>
>> I agree that this disparity appears to be unwanted. We
>> should settle on one or the other.
>>
>> > "rm -f" is better, because it is less magic, and everyone
>> > konws what is does.
>>
>> "$(RM)" is clearly defined as a Makefile implicit variable
>> which defaults to "rm -f".
>> Ref. https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Implicit-Variables.html
>
> Sure, but you had to look it up didn't you :) - I did.
>
>> Leaving it as a variable is more flexible because then the
>> default behavior can be overridden if need be, which is
>> not the case of a hardcoded "rm -f".
>
> But I don't think anyone actually wants to do that. Do they?
>
> Anyway I don't really care either way, so I'm happy for you to do a patch that
> uses $(RM). Or maybe Wang Long will be happy to respin his patch to use $(RM).

Yes, please. $(RM) is preferred, as that is the existing standard and
gives us flexibility.

-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/