linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX

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: <20230418150557.ea8c87c96ec64c899c88ab08@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2023 15:05:57 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Justin Forbes <jforbes@...oraproject.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of
 ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:27:08 +0100 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:

> > It sounds nice in theory. In practice. EXPERT hides too much. When you
> > flip expert, you expose over a 175ish new config options which are
> > hidden behind EXPERT.  You don't have to know what you are doing just
> > with the MAX_ORDER, but a whole bunch more as well.  If everyone were
> > already running 10, this might be less of a problem. At least Fedora
> > and RHEL are running 13 for 4K pages on aarch64. This was not some
> > accidental choice, we had to carry a patch to even allow it for a
> > while.  If this does go in as is, we will likely just carry a patch to
> > remove the "if EXPERT", but that is a bit of a disservice to users who
> > might be trying to debug something else upstream, bisecting upstream
> > kernels or testing a patch.  In those cases, people tend to use
> > pristine upstream sources without distro patches to verify, and they
> > tend to use their existing configs. With this change, their MAX_ORDER
> > will drop to 10 from 13 silently.   That can look like a different
> > issue enough to ruin a bisect or have them give bad feedback on a
> > patch because it introduces a "regression" which is not a regression
> > at all, but a config change they couldn't see.
> 
> If we remove EXPERT (as prior to this patch), I'd rather keep the ranges
> and avoid having to explain to people why some random MAX_ORDER doesn't
> build (keeping the range would also make sense for randconfig, not sure
> we got to any conclusion there).

Well this doesn't seem to have got anywhere.  I think I'll send the
patchset into Linus for the next merge window as-is.  Please let's take
a look at this Kconfig presentation issue during the following -rc
cycle.