linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Kconfig: Introduce "uses" keyword

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: <CAK7LNATmPD1R+Ranis2u3yohx8b0+dGKAvFpjg8Eo9yEHRT6zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 19 Apr 2020 05:07:43 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To:     Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
        jonas@...boo.se, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        jernej.skrabec@...l.net,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Kconfig: Introduce "uses" keyword

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 4:11 AM Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2020, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>
> > (FOO || !FOO) is difficult to understand, but
> > the behavior of "uses FOO" is as difficult to grasp.
>
> Can't this be expressed as the following instead:
>
>         depends on FOO if FOO
>
> That would be a little clearer.
>
>
> Nicolas



'depends on' does not take the 'if <expr>'

'depends on A if B' is the syntax sugar of
'depends on (A || !B), right ?

I do not know how clearer it would make things.

depends on (m || FOO != m)
is another equivalent, but we are always
talking about a matter of expression.


How important is it to stick to
depends on (FOO || !FOO)
or its equivalents?


If a driver wants to use the feature FOO
in most usecases, 'depends on FOO' is sensible.

If FOO is just optional, you can get rid of the dependency,
and IS_REACHABLE() will do logically correct things.


I do not think IS_REACHABLE() is too bad,
but if it is confusing, we can add one more
option to make it explicit.



config DRIVER_X
       tristate "driver x"

config DRIVER_X_USES_FOO
       bool "use FOO from driver X"
       depends on DRIVER_X
       depends on DRIVER_X <= FOO
       help
         DRIVER_X works without FOO, but
         Using FOO will provide better usability.
         Say Y if you want to make driver X use FOO.



Of course,

      if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRIVER_X_USES_FOO))
               foo_init();

works like

      if (IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_FOO))
                foo_init();


At lease, it will eliminate a question like
"I loaded the module FOO, I swear.
But my built-in driver X still would not use FOO, why?"





-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada