linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] can: Kconfig: add CONFIG_CAN_RX

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: <20220607182216.5fb1084e.max@enpas.org>
Date:   Tue, 7 Jun 2022 18:22:16 +0200
From:   Max Staudt <max@...as.org>
To:     Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] can: Kconfig: add CONFIG_CAN_RX_OFFLOAD

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 18:27:55 +0900
Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr> wrote:

> Second, and regardless of the above, I really think that it makes
> sense to have everything built in can-dev.ko by default. If someone
> does a binary release of can-dev.ko in which the rx offload is
> deactivated, end users would get really confused.
> 
> Having a can-dev module stripped down is an expert setting. The
> average user which does not need CAN can deselect CONFIG_CAN and be
> happy. The average hobbyist who wants to do some CAN hacking will
> activate CONFIG_CAN and will automatically have the prerequisites in
> can-dev for any type of device drivers (after that just need to select
> the actual device drivers). The advanced user who actually read all
> the help menus will know that he should rather keep those to "yes"
> throughout the "if unsure, say Y" comment. Finally, the experts can
> fine tune their configuration by deselecting the pieces they did not
> wish for.
> 
> Honestly, I am totally happy to have the "default y" tag, the "if
> unsure, say Y" comment and the "select CAN_RX_OFFLOAD" all together.
> 
> Unless I am violating some kind of best practices, I prefer to keep it
> as-is. Hope this makes sense.

I wholeheartedly agree with Vincent's decision.

One example case would be users of my can327 driver, as long as it is
not upstream yet. They need to have RX_OFFLOAD built into their
distribution's can_dev.ko, otherwise they will have no choice but to
build their own kernel.


Max