netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethernet/intel: fix PTP_1588

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:   Tue, 3 Aug 2021 08:55:56 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        "Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethernet/intel: fix PTP_1588_CLOCK
 dependencies

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 08:59:02AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> It may well be a lost cause, but a build fix is not the time to nail down
> that decision. The fix I proposed (with the added MAY_USE_PTP_1588_CLOCK
> symbol) is only two extra lines and leaves everything else working for the
> moment.

Well, then we'll have TWO ugly and incomprehensible Kconfig hacks,
imply and MAY_USE.

Can't we fix this once and for all?

Seriously, "imply" has been nothing but a major PITA since day one,
and all to save 22 kb.  I can't think of another subsystem which
tolerates so much pain for so little gain.

Thanks,
Richard


> I would suggest we merge that first and then raise the question
> about whether to give up on tinyfication on the summit list, there are a few
> other things that have come up that would also benefit from trying less hard,
> but if we overdo this, we can get to the point of hurting even systems that are
> otherwise still well supported (64MB MIPS/ARMv5 SoCs, small boot partitions,
> etc.).
> 
>         Arnd