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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 11:00:54 +0100 From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> Cc: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Collabora Kernel ML <kernel@...labora.com>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>, fabien.lahoudere@...labora.com, Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brodkin@...opsys.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64_defconfig: Normalize x86_64 defconfig Hi Krzysztof, On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 17:05, Enric Balletbo i Serra > <enric.balletbo@...labora.com> wrote: > > On 3/12/19 3:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 05:18, Enric Balletbo i Serra > > > <enric.balletbo@...labora.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> make savedefconfig result in some difference, lets normalize the > > >> defconfig > > >> > > > > > > No, for two reasons: > > > 1. If running savedefconfig at all, split reordering items from > > > removal of non needed options. This way we can see exactly what is > > > being removed. This patch moves things around so it is not possible to > > > understand what exactly you're doing here... > > > > Ok, makes sense, I can do it, but if you don't really care of having the > > defconfig sync with the savedefconfig output for the below reasons or others, > > that's fine with me. > > > > The reason I send the patch is because I think that, at least on some arm > > defconfigs, they try to have the defconfig sync with the savedefconfig output, > > the idea is to try to make patching the file easier, but I know this is usually > > a pain. > > Till I saw DEBUG_FS removal and Steven's answer, I was all in in such > patches from time to time. However now I think it's risky and instead > manual cleanup of non-visible symbols is better. IMHO, it's the maintainer's responsibility to refresh the defconfig(s) regularly, from known good config(s). I.e. you start from a known good .config, run "make oldconfig", verify the changes by comparing the .config before/after, and run "make savedefconfig" afterwards. You do not run blindly "make <my>_defconfig && make savedefconfig", as that means you'll miss out on new options you may want, and will loose old options that are no longer selected by other options. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists