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:   Sun, 13 Dec 2020 16:16:45 +0100
From:   Greg KH <>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        "Jason A . Donenfeld" <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Shuah Khan <>,
        clang-built-linux <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        Network Development <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Compiler Attributes: remove CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > The key here is "if nobody complains". I would argue that it is _your_
> > responsibility to do those builds, and not the reponsibility of others
> > to do it for you.
> Testing allmodconfig for a popular architecture, agreed, it is due
> diligence to avoid messing -next that day.
> Testing a matrix of configs * arches * gcc/clang * compiler versions?
> No, sorry, that is what CI/-next/-rcs are for and that is where the
> "if nobody complains" comes from.
> If you think building a set of code for a given arch/config/etc. is
> particularly important, then it is _your_ responsibility to build it
> once in a while in -next (as you have done). If it is not that
> important, somebody will speak up in one -rc. If not, is anyone
> actually building that code at all?
> Otherwise, changing core/shared code would be impossible. Please don't
> blame the author for making a sensible change that will improve code
> quality for everyone.
> > But, sure, your call. Please feel free to ignore my report.
> I'm not ignoring the report, quite the opposite. I am trying to
> understand why you think reverting is needed for something that has
> been more than a week in -next without any major breakage and still
> has a long road to v5.11.

Because if you get a report of something breaking for your change, you
need to work to resolve it, not argue about it.  Otherwise it needs to
be dropped/reverted.

Please fix.


greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists