linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iomap: hide iomap_sector with 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: <20190718142525.GE7116@magnolia>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:25:25 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iomap: hide iomap_sector with CONFIG_BLOCK=n

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 03:08:35PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 03:03:15PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > The inclusion comes from the recently added header check in commit
> > c93a0368aaa2 ("kbuild: do not create wrappers for header-test-y").
> > 
> > This just tries to include every header by itself to see if there are build
> > failures from missing indirect includes. We probably don't want to
> > add an exception for iomap.h there.
> 
> I very much disagree with that check.  We don't need to make every
> header compilable with a setup where it should not be included.

Seconded, unless there's some scenario where someone needs iomap when
CONFIG_BLOCK=n (???)

--D

> That being said if you feel this is worth fixing I'd rather define
> SECTOR_SIZE/SECTOR_SHIFT unconditionally.