linux-kernel - Re: [v5] Documentation: bootconfig: Update boot configuration documentation

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]

Date:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:26:32 +0100
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v5] Documentation: bootconfig: Update boot configuration
 documentation

>>> What bug are you reporting?
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> * Another typo
>>   “… contain only alphabets, …”
>>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/967d6fee-e0cd-c53f-c1f6-b367a979762c@web.de/
>>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/5/247
>
> Legitimate but not critical.

Thanks for such a view.

It might be that less simple update candidates were left over now.

>> * Use case explanation
>>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/f3c51b0a-2a55-6523-96e2-4f9ef0635d9f@web.de/
>>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/5/429
>
> I believe what Masami has is sufficient.

I got an other impression.

An other document contains background information like the following.

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/trace/boottime-trace.rst?id=b8381ce7aa8ef1ab5a79bf710508e504c494acf7
“…
Since kernel command line is not enough to control these complex features,
this uses bootconfig file to describe tracing feature programming.
…”

>> * Challenges for the safe application of key hierarchies
>>   “kernel.ftrace”?
>>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/c4a0bc10-a38b-6ea9-e125-7a37f667e61a@web.de/
>>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/28/363
>
> Again, what Masami has is sufficient.

I would appreciate further clarification also in this area.

>> * Feature request for syntax description
>>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/2390b729-1b0b-26b5-66bc-92e40e3467b1@web.de/
>>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/27/1869
>
> Masami's reply to you was sufficient.

Yes (in principle).

But I hope to achieve collateral evolution here, too.

> Of your examples, only one do I see can be applied, but is just a minor
> change in wording.

I am trying again to resolve disagreements somehow.

> I don't know where you are going with this, and unless you plan on
> submitting patches, I think this document is complete as is.

I hope also to influence the software development attention another bit.

Regards,
Markus