linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] security: Use IS_ENABLED() instead of checking for built-in or module

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: <37a0011d-b32f-d24b-3771-f6eb6cae5342@schaufler-ca.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:30:07 -0700
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: Use IS_ENABLED() instead of checking for
 built-in or module

On 7/14/2016 9:20 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Casey,
>
> On 07/14/2016 12:17 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 7/14/2016 9:00 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> The IS_ENABLED() macro checks if a Kconfig symbol has been enabled either
>>> built-in or as a module, use that macro instead of open coding the same.
>> Why?
>>
> Why not? We have a macro for this so why is better to open coding it?

Unless there is a real advantage to IS_ENABLED() over ifdef there
is no value in making the change. Any change can introduce a problem,
so we don't make changes based on "why not". It's called code churn.


>
> Best regards,