linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kconfig: remove EXPERT from CHECKPOINT

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: <20180714201610.GB17877@localhost>
Date:   Sat, 14 Jul 2018 13:16:10 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
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

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 02:39:24PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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.

No, it isn't. I've *watched* the kernel's size trend steadily upward
over time. And it largely happens in individual features that don't
think *their* contribution to size is all that large.

> > 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.

It adds up; there are hundreds more small features like it.

> 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.

I don't have any objection to *that*, as long as the option remains.