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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKXUXMxfF=WrVAWEZ=G8We+fOUvaM7o9uC_c8OVEDfa9Yv4sVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 13:43:51 +0200
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Ren Zhijie <renzhijie2@...wei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, seanjc@...gle.com,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, ojeda@...nel.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        atomlin@...hat.com, ddiss@...e.de,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] init/Kconfig: fix unmet direct dependencies

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:32 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, at 11:14 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2022-09-28 09:20:42 [+0200], Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >
> > then CHECKPOINT_RESTORE is the only option selecting PROC_FS while
> > everyone else depends on it _or_ avoids using it in the absence of
> > PROC_FS.
>
> Right, we should not mix 'select' and 'depends on' for the same
> symbol, as that leads to circular dependencies and general
> confusion.
>
> If there is no way to use CHECKPOINT_RESTORE without procfs,
> then the symbol should just not be visible (it will still show
> up with the dependency when one searches in menuconfig).
> Force-enabling a major subsystem like procfs from another
> symbol is not a good solution.
>

Agree. I retract my Reviewed-by.

The arguments are clear to make this depend on PROC_FS.

Lukas