linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] watchdog/hardlockup: Make the config checks more straightforward

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]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WP39nUmdeNjjTGx-XWhS4AgG5haHCfYjFUCEKckYVZDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:47:19 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] watchdog/hardlockup: Make the config checks more straightforward

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 3:29 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>
> It seems that we have entered into a bike shedding mode.
> The following questions come to my mind:
>
>    1. Does this patchset improve the current state?
>
>    2. Maybe, it is not black&white. Is it possible to summarize
>       what exactly got better and what got worse?
>
> Maybe, there is no need to do bike-shedding about every step
> if the final result is reasonable and the steps are not
> completely wrong.
>
> I just followed my intuition and tried to do some changes step
> by step. I got lost many times so maybe the steps are not
> ideal. Anyway, the steps helped me to understand the logic
> and stay reasonably confident that they did not change
> the behavior.
>
> I could rework the patchset. But I first need to know what
> exactly is bad in the result. And eventually if there is more
> logical way how to end there.

Sure. I still feel like the end result of the CONFIG options after
your whole patchset is easier to understand / cleaner by adjusting the
dependencies as I have suggested. That being said, I agree that it is
the type of thing that can be more a matter of personal preference. I
do agree that, even if you don't take my suggestion of adjusting the
dependencies, the end result of your patchset still makes things
better than they were.

...so if you really feel strongly that things are more understandable
with the dependencies specified as you have, I won't stand in the way.
I still think you need a v2, though, just to address other nits.

-Doug