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:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 10:41:09 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <>
To:     Olof Johansson <>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Joel Fernandes <>,
        Joel Fernandes <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Qais Yousef <>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <>,
        Manoj Rao <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        atish patra <>,
        Daniel Colascione <>,
        Dan Williams <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Guenter Roeck <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Karim Yaghmour <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Android Kernel Team <>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <>,
        Randy Dunlap <>,
        Shuah Khan <>, Yonghong Song <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] Provide in-kernel headers to make extending
 kernel easier

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:38:34 -0700
Olof Johansson <> wrote:

> >From my perspective, this is where we're at:  
> This patch seems to have been met with a lot of responses in the tone
> of "this is not an appealing solution". Meanwhile, some of the
> suggested alternative solutions have not worked out, and we are now at
> a point where there's less interest in exploring alternatives and
> arguments to merge as-is with only minor adjustments.

Another consideration to make is difficulty of support. Having a
tarball compressed headers may not be an appealing solution, but it
isn't one that would be too much of an issue to support. Having a
better interface would be difficult to get right, and if you get it
wrong, you are now stuck with supporting something that may become a
big pain to do so in the future.

> I'd be a *lot* less hesitant if this went into debugfs or another
> location than /proc, which is one of the most regression-sensitive
> interfaces we have in the kernel.

I agree with this assessment. We shouldn't use config.gz as precedence
for this solution. config.gz should have been in debugfs to begin with,
but I don't believe debugfs was around when config.gz was introduced.
(Don't have time to look into the history of the two).

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists