linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] resource, kunit: add dependency on SPARSEMEM

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: <CAMuHMdXBbBKskY+TXswaw-oHvLANzoVJGWAjWQDy4HPMuZwasA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 09:56:35 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] resource, kunit: add dependency on SPARSEMEM

Hi Huang,

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 3:25 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> writes:
> > On 9/23/24 05:58, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> Hi Günter,
> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:50 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Building allmodconfig images on systems with SPARSEMEM=n results in
> >>> the following message.
> >>>
> >>> WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for GET_FREE_REGION
> >>>    Depends on [n]: SPARSEMEM [=n]
> >>>    Selected by [m]:
> >>>    - RESOURCE_KUNIT_TEST [=m] && RUNTIME_TESTING_MENU [=y] && KUNIT [=m]

> After Linus' fix for PHYSMEM_END, GET_FREE_REGION doesn't need to depend
> on SPARSEMEM anymore.  So, I think we can remove the dependency.  Can
> you check whether the following patch work for you on top of latest
> upstream kernel (with Linus' fix).

Yes it does, thanks!

One remaining issue is that RESOURCE_KUNIT_TEST selects GET_FREE_REGION.
IMHO merely enabling a test should not enable extra functionality
in the kernel.  Can the individual test(s) that do depend on
GET_FREE_REGION be protected by #ifdef CONFIG_GET_FREE_REGION instead?

Thanks again!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds