linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] drivers: parisc: Avoids building driver if CONFIG

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]

Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 22:01:50 -0300
From:   Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@...il.com>
To:     schmitzmic@...il.com
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        lkcamp@...ts.libreplanetbr.org,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>,
        Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] drivers: parisc: Avoids building driver if
 CONFIG_PARISC is disabled

Hello Michael,

> That already works, doesn't it? So all that you'd need is an offline
> tool to precompute what drivers to actually build with a given config.
>
> 'make -n' with some suitable output mangling might do the job.
>
> There may well be other ways to achieve your stated goal, without any
> need to make changes to the kernel build process (which is the result of
> many years of evolution and tuning, BTW).

Thanks for the info, I will try to use it.

> > This change is not supposed to bother the usual way of building the kernel, and
>
> Enough people have voiced their concern to warrant that you should back
> up that claim, IMO. Have you verified that your patchset does not change
> current behaviour when building the entire set of default configurations
> for each supported architecture? Does it reduce or increase overall
> complexity of the build process?
>
I have tried in some ARCHs and it worked fine. Out of curiosity, I
will try on all
of them.

> > it is not even supposed to add overhead to kernel compilation. And it would,
> > at least, solve my problem with the 3h limit, and enable the tool
> > I am building on GiltabCI to help other developers.
>
> (Apropos of nothing: Am I the only one who thinks gitlab might take a
> rather dim view of your creativity in dealing with their limit?)
>

They make available 50k minutes a month for OSS projects. I don't believe they
care how it's spent if its used to build/deploy the project. They even
allow using
several 'jobs' in parallel in order to speed up the process.

Thanks for your help,

Leonardo Bras