linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] drm for 6.10-rc1

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: <CAHk-=wh8DWSMrtuhZOzanfBCFcuJCihO9x7fkzx-dBhLddXF-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 15:56:28 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, 
	dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm for 6.10-rc1

On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 15:45, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
>
>           The drm subsystem enables more warnings than the kernel default, so
>           this config option is disabled by default.

Irrelevant.

If the *main* CONFIG_WERROR is on, then it does NOT MATTER if somebody
sets CONFIG_DRM_WERROR or not. It's a no-op. It's pointless.

And that means that it's also entirely pointless to ask. It's only annoying.

> depends on DRM && EXPERT
>
> so we aren't throwing it at random users.

Yes you are.

Because - rightly or wrongly - distros enable EXPERT by default. At
least Fedora does. So any user that starts from a distro config will
have EXPERT enabled.

> should we rename it CONFIG_DRM_WERROR_MORE or something?

Renaming does nothing. If it's pointless, it's pointless even if it's renamed.

It needs to have a

   depends on !WERROR

because if WERROR is already true, then it's stupid and wrong to ask AGAIN.

To summarize: if the main WERROR is enabled, then the DRM tree is
*ALREADY* built with WERROR. Asking for DRM_WERROR is wrong.

I keep harping on bad config variables because our kernel config thing
is already much too messy and is by far the most difficult part of
building your own kernel.

Everything else is literally just "make" followed by "make
modules_install" and "make install". Very straightforward.

But doing a kernel config? Nasty. And made nastier by bad and
nonsensical questions.

            Linus