linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Remove INET dependency

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 3 May 2023 10:11:05 -0400
From:   Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@...il.com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
Cc:     Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...nel.org>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>,
        v9fs@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Remove INET dependency

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 7:31 PM Dominique Martinet
<asmadeus@...ewreck.org> wrote:
>
> Jason Andryuk wrote on Tue, May 02, 2023 at 08:03:15AM -0400:
> > > Good catch.
> > > Could you add depends on INET to NET_9P_FD in net/9p/Kconfig?
> >
> > trans_fd.o builds without INET and without UNIX.  Looks like trying to
> > use either TCP or UNIX sockets would lead to runtime errors, but it
> > also supports generic file descriptors.  That could be useful for
> > someone.   Since it builds, would it be okay to leave this patch
> > unchanged, or do you still want the depends added?  Leaving the patch
> > unchanged provides more flexibility, though the runtime errors may
> > surprise users.  While I built a Xen kernel without INET or UNIX, that
> > is an unusual scenario.  Typically INET and UNIX sockets will be built
> > in anyway even without a depends.
>
> Hmm, good point; the socket interface is common between INET and
> UNIX.. And you're right about the ability to use plain fd as well.
>
> How about 'imply INET'? That will automatically select INET when
> enabled, but allow someone to disable it explicitly.

This sounds good.

Thanks,
Jason