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  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:   Wed, 6 May 2020 16:36:05 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <>
To:     Dave Hansen <>,
        Babu Moger <>,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arch/x86: Rename config

On 2020-05-06 4:21 p.m., Dave Hansen wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> index 1197b5596d5a..8630b9fa06f5 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> @@ -1886,11 +1886,11 @@ config X86_UMIP
>>  	  specific cases in protected and virtual-8086 modes. Emulated
>>  	  results are dummy.
>> -	prompt "Intel Memory Protection Keys"
>> +	prompt "Memory Protection Keys"
>>  	def_bool y
>>  	# Note: only available in 64-bit mode
>> -	depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL && X86_64
>> +	depends on X86_64 && (CPU_SUP_INTEL || CPU_SUP_AMD)
>>  	select ARCH_HAS_PKEYS
>>  	---help---
> It's a bit of a bummer that we're going to prompt everybody doing
> oldconfig's for this new option.  But, I don't know any way for Kconfig
> to suppress it if the name is changed.  Also, I guess the def_bool=y
> means that menuconfig and olddefconfig will tend to do the right thing.
> Do we *really* need to change the Kconfig name?  The text prompt, sure.
>  End users see that and having Intel in there is massively confusing.
> If I have to put up with seeing 'amd64' all over my Debian package
> names, you can put up with a Kconfig name. :P

Lol, isn't that just Intel's penance for Itanium?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists