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]

Date:   Sat, 23 Jul 2022 20:52:31 +0200
From:   Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>
To:     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,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ARM: qcom_defconfig: order items with savedefconfig

On Samstag, 23. Juli 2022 20:44:08 CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.

So savedefconfig is "broken" (not doing the correct thing) then or what? Sounds 
like a topic for kconfig maintainers?

> 
> > 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