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  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:	Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:16:59 +0200
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
	Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@...il.com>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>, mmarek@...e.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, jbottomley@...n.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, tiwai@...e.de, corbet@....net,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, roberto@...osmo.org, zack@...ilon.cc,
	soos.mate@...il.com, skl@....ua.pt, iouliia@....ua.pt,
	Armin Biere <biere@....at>, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kbuild: document recursive dependency limitation /
 resolution

On di, 2015-10-06 at 01:03 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:42:47PM +0200, Valentin Rothberg wrote:

> > In contrast to a select, a symbol using a dependency is only
> > visible to the user when its dependency are satisfied.  I see it as a
> > decision between being semantically correct (depends) and being easy to
> > configure/user friendly (select).
> 
> Good point, something easy to configure should however still likely only
> be visible to the user if and only if it would not break existing user
> config. If we are not ensuring that now its perhaps good to annotate that
> as a desirable future feature.

(This might be going off on a tangent a bit.)

Perhaps the issue that people run into, and that Luis is trying to
solve, here and in other threads, is that these two approaches currently
are used at the same level. In other words, maybe the configuration
requirements should only be described using dependency relations while a
(new) tool should provide what now is provided, sort of, by selects.

Isn't that how package managers work? The packages themselves state
things like: "I need Foo", "I conflict with Bar". Package managers use
that information to handle what people actually care about, like "Please
install Baz", without requiring those people to do the busy work of
figuring out the dependencies of all packages.

So, would a future SAT solver for Kconfig use a two level approach too:
given the set of dependencies of the various features (first level) try
to figure out if and how the features a user picks can actually be
enabled (second level)?

Thanks,


Paul Bolle
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists