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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:29:00 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "narmstrong@...libre.com" <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        "masahiroy@...nel.org" <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        "Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com" 
        <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "nico@...xnic.net" <nico@...xnic.net>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com" 
        <kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com" <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        "a.hajda@...sung.com" <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        "jonas@...boo.se" <jonas@...boo.se>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "airlied@...ux.ie" <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        "jernej.skrabec@...l.net" <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] Regressions for "imply" behavior change

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 07:04:27PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-10 at 14:13 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 02:40:42AM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > 
> > > This assumes that the module using FOO has its own flag
> > > representing
> > > FOO which is not always the case.
> > > 
> > > for example in mlx5 we use VXLAN config flag directly to compile
> > > VXLAN
> > > related files:
> > > 
> > > mlx5/core/Makefile:
> > > 
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_MLX5_CORE) += mlx5_core.o
> > > 
> > > mlx5_core-y := mlx5_core.o
> > > mlx5_core-$(VXLAN) += mlx5_vxlan.o
> > > 
> > > and in mlx5_main.o we do:
> > 
> > Does this work if VXLAN = m ?
> 
> Yes, if VXLAN IS_REACHABLE to MLX5, mlx5_vxlan.o will be
> compiled/linked.

So mlx5_core-m does the right thing somehow?

> > 
> > > if (IS_ENABLED(VXLAN))
> > >        mlx5_vxlan_init()
> > > 
> > > after the change in imply semantics:
> > > our options are:
> > > 
> > > 1) use IS_REACHABLE(VXLAN) instead of IS_ENABLED(VXLAN)
> > > 
> > > 2) have MLX5_VXLAN in mlx5 Kconfig and use IS_ENABLED(MLX5_VXLAN) 
> > > config MLX5_VXLAN
> > > 	depends on VXLAN || !VXLAN
> > > 	bool
> > 
> > Does this trick work when vxlan is a bool not a tristate?
> > 
> > Why not just put the VXLAN || !VXLAN directly on MLX5_CORE?
> > 
> 
> so force MLX5_CORE to n if vxlan is not reachable ? 

IIRC that isn't what the expression does, if vxlan is 'n' then 
  n || !n == true

The other version of this is (m || VXLAN != m)

Basically all it does is prevent MLX5_CORE=y && VXLAN=m

> and how do we compile mlx5_vxlan.o wihout a single flag 
> can i do in Makefile :
> mlx5_core-$(VXLAN || !VXLAN) += mlx5_vxlan.o ?? 

No, you just use VXLAN directly, it will be m, n or y, but it won't be
m if mlx5_core is y

Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists