linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] init/Kconfig: fix unmet direct dependencies

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:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:52:13 +0800
From:   Ren Zhijie <renzhijie2@...wei.com>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
CC:     <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        <nathan@...nel.org>, <vbabka@...e.cz>, <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        <arnd@...db.de>, <seanjc@...gle.com>, <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        <ojeda@...nel.org>, <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, <atomlin@...hat.com>, <ddiss@...e.de>,
        <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] init/Kconfig: fix unmet direct dependencies


在 2022/9/28 15:20, Lukas Bulwahn 写道:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> On 2022-09-28 06:49:34 [+0000], Ren Zhijie wrote:
>>> --- a/init/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/init/Kconfig
>>> @@ -1273,6 +1273,7 @@ endif # NAMESPACES
>>>
>>>   config CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
>>>        bool "Checkpoint/restore support"
>>> +     select PROC_FS
>> Couldn't this become a depends?
>>
> It could also be a depends (to resolve the warning).
>
> It is just the question whether:
>
> When PROC_FS is not set, should the CHECKPOINT_RESTORE still be
> visible as a config option to add (and then automatically add
> PROC_FS)? Then select is right here.
>
> or:
>
> When PROC_FS is not set, should the CHECKPOINT_RESTORE not be visible
> as a config option to add? Instead the user first needs to add
> PROC_FS, then CHECKPOINT_RESTORE becomes visible as an option to add,
> and then the user can add it. Then depends would be right.
>
> For me, both seem reasonable. So, I assume Ren considered select the
> better choice.
>
> But maybe Ren can confirm.

My consider is that if CHECKPOINT_RESTORE depends on PROC_FS , when 
PROC_FS is not set the user have no chance to set it on.

Thanks,

Ren

>
> A kernel build configuration without PROC_FS is quite special
> anyway... and then being interested in CHECKPOINT_ RESTORE for such a
> system is really really special. I wonder if that user then really
> knows what he or she is configuring at that point.
>
>
> Lukas
> .
.