netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] can: Kconfig: add CONFIG_CAN_RX

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]

Message-ID: <20220608022123.05f73356.max@enpas.org>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jun 2022 02:22:10 +0200
From:   Max Staudt <max@...as.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] can: Kconfig: add CONFIG_CAN_RX_OFFLOAD

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 17:14:55 -0700
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:

> We have a ton of "magical" / hidden Kconfigs in networking, take a
> look at net/Kconfig. Quick grep, likely not very accurate but FWIW:

Fair enough. Thinking about it, I've grepped my distro's kernel config
for features more than just a handful of times...

> > How about making RX_OFFLOAD a separate .ko file, so we don't have
> > various possible versions of can_dev.ko?
> > 
> > @Vincent, I think you suggested that some time ago, IIRC?
> > 
> > (I know, I was against a ton of little modules, but I'm changing my
> > ways here now since it seems to help...)  
> 
> A separate module wouldn't help with my objections, I don't think.

In a system where the CAN stack is compiled as modules (i.e. a regular
desktop distribution), the feature's presence/absence would be easily
visible via the .ko file's presence/absence.

Then again, I have to agree, distributing a system where RX_OFFLOAD is
present, but no drivers using it whatsoever, seems... strange.

I guess I got lost in my thinking there, with my out of tree
development and all. Sorry for the noise.

Max