[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871sc5vc7n.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 14:39:24 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adrian Reber <adrian@...as.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>,
Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: remove EXPERT from CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 02:04:46PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> For a config option that no one has come forward with an actual real
>> world use case for disabling, that cost seems much too high.
>
> The real-world use case is precisely as stated: code size, both storage
> and RAM.
That is theoretical. Which platform will break or feel distressed if we
make it unconditional. That is real world.
> I regularly encounter systems I'd *like* to put Linux in that have
> around 1MB of storage and 1MB of RAM, or even less.
Yes. There is so little code behind CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART that it
won't help with that.
But if minification is the actual requirement for disabling
CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART than CONFIG_CHECKPIONT_RESTART is properly
behind expert and it needs to be default y instead of default n.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists