linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ARM: qcom_defconfig: order items with savedefconfig

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: <c5150e83-0e50-3be6-b6bd-bf30fe5e94d1@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 23 Jul 2022 20:44:08 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ARM: qcom_defconfig: order items with
 savedefconfig

On 23/07/2022 20:17, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Samstag, 23. Juli 2022 19:36:17 CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/07/2022 11:58, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>> See also
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20191104210943.101393-1-luca@z3ntu.x
>>> yz/ (never applied for some reason)
>>
>> Mentioned patch is incorrect so should not be applied - it removes at
>> least TMPFS which is not desired. I did not check other removed symbols.
> 
> For this example: TMPFS is still enabled after this, it's selected by other 
> options, like DRM or COMMON_CLK.

I know, it does not matter. We had this case (with DEBUGFS and probably
others) and the decision was - user visible symbols must no be removed
by savedefconfig.

> 
> Imo not doing this just hides the brokeness as options wouldn't get selected 
> anyways when you do "make qcom_defconfig". Savedefconfig afterwards just puts 
> reality into the defconfig file. And yes, if some option gets lost then some 
> dependency for it probably needs to get enabled as well and this should get 
> fixed.

But dependencies are no being enabled, because expectation is that all
user-visible options are selected by defconfig.


Best regards,
Krzysztof