netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] kconfig: introduce the "imply" keyword

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:   Sat, 29 Oct 2016 00:09:05 +0200
From:   Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:     Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Cc:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] kconfig: introduce the "imply" keyword

On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 23:10 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > And in your example BAR is bool, right? Does the above get more
> > complicated if BAR would be tristate?
> 
> If BAR=m then implying BAZ from FOO=y will force BAZ to y or n, 
> bypassing the restriction provided by BAR like "select" does.  This is 
> somewhat questionable for "select" to do that, and the code emits a 
> warning when "select" bypasses a direct dependency set to n, but not 
> when set to m. For now "imply" simply tries to be consistent with 
> the "select" behavior.

Side note: yes, one can select a symbol that's missing one or more
dependencies. But since Kconfig has two separate methods to describe
relations (ie, selecting and depending) there's logically the
possibility of conflict. So we need a rule to resolve that conflict.
That rule is: "select" beats "depends on". I don't think that this rule
is less plausible than the opposite rule.


Paul Bolle