linux-kernel - Re: Kconfig issue with LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT + BASE

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]

Message-ID: <YW3egZRCwQPsnuMM@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 13:52:17 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Kconfig issue with LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT + BASE_SMALL

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:21:22AM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> The most straightforward fix seems to be change init/Kconfig and
> LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT to say:
> 
>   default 12 if BASE_SMALL=0
>   default 0 if BASE_SMALL!=0

Thanks for reporting! Please feel free to send a patch with a Fixes
annotation.

> In fact, I'm not sure what the point of BASE_SMALL is in the first
> place. Should we get rid of it altogether? (git blame says it's been
> there since the initial commit.)

That's just the inverse of BASE_FULL, if you'd like to remove BASE_SMALL
take it up with the folks with added BASE_FULL, but I have a feeling
that may not be something they are up for.

  Luis