linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] fs: hide names_cachep behind runtime access machinery

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjRA8G9eOPWa_Njz4NAk3gZNvdt0WAHZfn3iXfcVsmpcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 09:31:38 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, 
	jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	pfalcato@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] fs: hide names_cachep behind runtime access machinery

On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 at 09:25, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I take the intent would be still to fail compilation if
> runtime-const.h is included. The file is there for the premier
> platforms, but most platforms still resort to
> asm-generic/runtime-const.h. I think it would be beneficial to have
> that sucker also cause compilation failure if included for a module.

Good point.  Yeah, I think you're right.

             Linus