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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:17:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>, Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>, Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] Regressions for "imply" behavior change On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:38 PM Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > I have created workarounds for the Kconfig files, which now stop using > > > imply and do something else in each case. I don't know whether there was > > > a bug in the kconfig changes that has led to allowing configurations that > > > were not meant to be legal even with the new semantics, or if the Kconfig > > > files have simply become incorrect now and the tool works as expected. > > > > In most cases it is the code that has to be fixed. It typically does: > > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO)) > > foo_init(); > > > > Where it should rather do: > > > > if (IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_FOO)) > > foo_init(); > > > > A couple of such patches have been produced and queued in their > > respective trees already. > > I try to use IS_REACHABLE() only as a last resort, as it tends to > confuse users when a subsystem is built as a module and already > loaded but something relying on that subsystem does not use it. Then this is a usage policy issue, not a code correctness issue. The correctness issue is fixed with IS_REACHABLE(). If you want to enforce a usage policy then this goes in Kconfig. But you still can do both. Nicolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists