[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200415122320.70668776379706323bbc752e@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:23:20 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Ivan Teterevkov <ivan.teterevkov@...anix.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...onical.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kernel/sysctl: support setting sysctl parameters
from kernel command line
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:25:07 +0200
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
> On 4/6/20 7:08 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:58:50AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:08:36PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> >> > > Yes. Doing an internal extension isn't testing the actual code.
> >> >
> >> > But it would.
> >> >
> >> > [...]
> >> > > I don't think anything is needed for this series. It can be boot tested
> >> > > manually.
> >> >
> >> > Why test it manually when it could be tested automatically with a new kconfig?
> >>
> >> So, my impression is that adding code to the internals to test the
> >> internals isn't a valid test (or at least makes it fragile) because the
> >> test would depend on the changes to the internals (or at least depend on
> >> non-default non-production CONFIGs).
> >
> > The *internal* aspect here is an extension to boot params under a
> > kconfig which would simply append to it, as if the user would have
>
> So there's no such kconfig yet to apply boot parameters specified by configure,
> right? That would itself be a new feature. Or could we use bootconfig? (CC Masami)
Yes, I think you can use bootconfig to add this feature more flexibly.
I think your patch is easily modified to use bootconfig. :)
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists