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, 21 Feb 2024 16:10:12 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...hat.com>
Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetbo@...hat.com>,
 Erico Nunes <nunes.erico@...il.com>, Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
 Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable zram, xfs and loading
 compressed FW support

On 21/02/2024 15:48, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:22:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/02/2024 15:13, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> These options are needed by some Linux distributions (e.g: Fedora), so
>>
>> How ZRAM is needed? Why Fedora cannot boot without it? Debian, which I
>> use on my arm64 boards, does not have any problem.
> 
> Is it relevant in any way?

Yes, because it is justification why we are doing it. Each commit is
supposed to explain "why" and the explanation here is not enough.

> 
> I'm sure Debian can boot without MEMORY_HOTREMOVE, or BRIDGE, or
> NUMA_BALANCING, or BPF_JIT, or NFS_FS, yet all of them are enabled. Let
> me know if you want hundreds more examples.

So if there is any bug, you are allowed to add new one? If there is any
silly option, you are allowed to add new one?

Feel free to propose dropping of any irrelevant options.

> 
>> I kind of repeat comments from similar patch earlier:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/fe1e74a2-e933-7cd9-f740-86d871076191@linaro.org/
>>
>> About XFS: I don't think it is needed to boot anything.
> 
> Just like 9P_FS, NFS or UBIFS.

NFS is often used on targets, e.g. my board farm, but also by other people.

UBIFS was added recently because one device was using it - you needed
it. 9P_FS looks unnecessary.

> 
>> This is a defconfig, not a distro config. Please don't make it distro.
>>
>> I will gladly support things needed by systemd or equivalent, but not
>> unusual filesystems needed by distro.
> 
> It's a defconfig. It's whatever people want it to be. Or we need to come
> up with a clearly defined set of rules of what is acceptable in that
> defconfig or not, and prune every option that isn't.

So that's the rule I am commenting from time to time. defconfigs are not
distro configs. These are reference hardware configs and debugging
configs. I was working in distro so trust me - they do stuff differently
and they not need XFS in our defconfig for anything.

Best regards,
Krzysztof


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ