linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: remove 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]

Message-ID: <802e6ae2-40b2-8f46-fe9f-1277bf55d50f@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 12:00:57 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     torvalds@...uxfoundation.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: remove CONFIG_LBDAF

On 4/5/19 10:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Currently support for 64-bit sector_t and blkcnt_t is optional on 32-bit
> architectures.  These types are required to support block device and/or
> file sizes larger than 2 TiB, and have generally defaulted to on for
> a long time.  Enabling the option only increases the i386 tinyconfig
> size by 145 bytes, and many data structures already always use
> 64-bit values for their in-core and on-disk data structures anyway,
> so there should not be a large change in dynamic memory usage either.
> 
> Dropping this option removes a somewhat weird non-default config that
> has cause various bugs or compiler warnings when actually used.

I'm greatly in favor of this - but can we drop the defconfig changes?
Not strictly needed, it's not like they will cause issues with the
symbol still being there.

-- 
Jens Axboe