linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/x86_64_defconfig: Enable the serial console

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201011122020.GA15925@zn.tnic>
Date:   Sun, 11 Oct 2020 14:20:20 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, Collabora Kernel ML <kernel@...labora.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@...meeyes.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/x86_64_defconfig: Enable the serial console

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 01:43:44PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> We're also probably lacking a definition of what normal users mean, because I
> don't think normal users build their own kernel.

You'd be surprised.

> I think that at least X86_AMD_PLATFORM_DEVICE and MFD_INTEL_LPSS_PCI
> could be common enough to match within the category of needed to run
> in normal (or common) user mode(s). I can send a patch with only these
> two options.

How do you quantify those things are common enough?

> But, yes, the main purpose after this patch is the serial console for CI. I saw
> that there are already some configs with a specific purpose (tiny.config and
> xen.config). So, I am wondering if would be acceptable support another specific
> config for CI (i.e kernelci.config). Will it be acceptable?

Why does this config have to be upstream? Can't your build process
supply it? Also, can your config be of any use outside of kernel CI?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette