linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL 2/2] Kconfig updates for v5.10-rc1

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 12:13:31 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc:     Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 2/2] Kconfig updates for v5.10-rc1

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 4:54 AM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Just a nit:
> Now that the test code does not include any header,
> you can also delete
> "-I $srctree/gcc-plugins -I $gccplugins_dir/include"

Ahh,m yes.

It sounds like we might be able to delete the build test entirely if
we just always expect to have a recent enough gcc.

Testing the headers for existence would presumably still be needed,
just to verify "do we have plugin support installed at all".

But I'm not planning on applying this directly - I find the config
overhead to be a bit annoying, but it's not like it is _objectively_
really a problem. More of a personal hangup ;)

        Linus