linux-kernel - Re: Why is 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: <ffa8ec1d-71d7-a153-eed9-8e2daee40949@landley.net>
Date:   Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:27:50 -0600
From:   Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why is CONFIG_VT forced on?

On 12/30/19 8:52 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>> Rob, if you are in a mood for a long wank, it's your business.  But try to avoid
>> spraying the results over public lists.

I don't post regularly here anymore, but it's good to see the code of conduct
and Linus's sabbatical have had a positive effect on the place in my absence.

> To elaborate: you are complaining about VT being treated the same way as e.g.
> ELF_CORE or UID16.  Which might or might not be reasonable, but kconfig folks
> have nothing to do with that.
>
> Your complaint is basically that the same thing is forcing all of those on
> in default configs.

No, my complaint was that kconfig basically has the concept of symbols that turn
_off_ something that is otherwise on by default ("Disable X" instead of "Enable
X"), but it was implemented it in an awkward way then allowed to scale to silly
levels, and now the fact it exists is being used as evidence that it was a good
idea.

I had to work out a way to work around this design breakage, which I did and had
moved on before this email, but I thought pointing out the awkwardness might
help a design discussion. My mistake.

The thread _started_ because menuconfig help has a blind spot (which seemed like
a bug to me, it _used_ to say why), and then I found the syntax you changed a
year or two back non-obvious when I tried to RTFM but that part got answered.

> Instead of having a separate ROB_WANTS_THOSE that would
> prop the rest, but not VT (and frankly, quite a bit of that rest is
> questionable for minimal setups).  With ROB_WANTS_THOSE (or equivalent
> information) enshrined in the kernel tree for your convenience.
>
> Pardon me, but... why is that anyone else's problem?

You drove everybody away who would express similar concerns years ago. None of
my co-workers have wanted to get linux-kernel on them in ages. (I thought that
sort of thing was why you were having a code of conduct and such, but apparently
not.)

*shrug* I'll try to be more proactive about stripping linux-kernel from the cc:
list once I've got a human's attention in a thread. (Or just try to dig up
somebody to email directly via git history and the maintainers file.)

I leave you to your sexual metaphors,

Rob