linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] selftests/liveupdate: Cleanup kernel optio CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE

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: <51f77faa-5d8b-4e8b-8cfd-04ae06726864@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 10:15:07 -0800
From: "Yanjun.Zhu" <yanjun.zhu@...ux.dev>
To: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@...nel.org>
Cc: pasha.tatashin@...een.com, rppt@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] selftests/liveupdate: Cleanup kernel optio
 CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE_TEST

On 2/10/26 5:36 AM, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29 2026, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
>
>> 在 2026/1/29 20:28, Zhu Yanjun 写道:
>>> The kernel option CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE_TEST does not exist currently.
>>> Remove it.
>> In kernel 6.19-rc7, this kernel option still exists in the file
>>
>> tools/testing/selftests/liveupdate/config. Thus I send out this commit to remove
>> it.
> Yes, but the patch to add the config is in mm-nonmm-unstable. I am not
> sure if this worth the churn of removing this and re-adding it when that
> patch lands later. Do you see a real problem with this?
Thanks for the feedback.

I understand that the patch adding this functionality is currently in 
mm-nonmm-unstable. My concern was primarily adhering to the 
documentation, which suggests keeping the kernel configs pruned of 
unused options to avoid confusion for those running selftests.

However, I see your point regarding the churn. If you prefer, we can 
wait until the mm-nonmm-unstable branch is merged into the mainline. 
Once that happens, if this option remains truly redundant or if the 
implementation changes, I can resubmit the cleanup then.

Does that sound like a reasonable compromise to you?

Best regards,

Yanjun.Zhu

>
> [...]
>