linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Make SRCU be once again optional

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: <20180117163235.GA14896@localhost>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:32:35 -0800
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Make SRCU be once again optional

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:29:26AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:03:18AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> Evidently there is at least one driver that uses SRCU but doesn't 'select SRCU'
> >> in Kconfig. There are probably others that just haven't been found.
> >
> > Does adding "select SRCU" on "config PM_SLEEP" in kernel/power/Kconfig
> > fix this?
> 
> I'm sure it does, but the point I was making is that we probably have a number
> of those, and would never find the other ones through the current build test
> setup.
> 
> I've now tried disabling a ridiculous number of options to come up with a
> setup that never enables SRCU. Interestingly, that also means we don't
> get the drivers/base/power/wakeup.c problem in 'allmodconfig', though
> I did get a link-time error:
[...]
> Turning off lockdep and kmemleak gives me a working allmodconfig build.
> I'm doing some more testing on ARM, but it looks like this is a dark corner
> of the randconfig state space that I'm not sure I want to explore more.
> 
> Doing an hour of randconfig builds, I already found exactly two missing
> 'select SRCU':
> 
> ERROR: "__srcu_read_unlock" [drivers/infiniband/core/ib_uverbs.ko] undefined!
> drivers/base/power/wakeup.c:68:1: error: type defaults to 'int' in
> declaration of 'DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU' [-Werror=implicit-int]

I've found that, when trying to make something optional, it doesn't
suffice to do randconfigs.  You need a configuration with *everything*
enabled, except for the option you want to test disabling, and anything
that depends on or selects that option.  And, conversely, when testing
if a specific option has all the dependencies it needs, you want a
configuration with that option and its dependencies/selects enabled
and everything else disabled.

I wonder how easily we could make a kconfig option for an "all except"
or "none except" config?  Such an option would read a minimal config
snippet containing only specific options, and then act like
allyesconfig/allmodconfig/allnoconfig as long as doing so doesn't
change anything from the minimal config snippet.

- Josh Triplett