netdev - Re: [PATCH] bcma,ssb: simplify dependency handling for bcma and ssb drivers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:16:29 +0100
From: Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>, Johannes Berg
 <johannes@...solutions.net>, Rafał Miłecki
 <zajec5@...il.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>, Arend van
 Spriel <aspriel@...il.com>, Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>, Hante
 Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org,
 brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com, SHA-cyfmac-dev-list@...ineon.com,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcma,ssb: simplify dependency handling for bcma and ssb
 drivers

Hi Lukas,

thanks for your patch.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:03:54 +0100
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com> wrote:

> While reading through the code, I was
> confused on what the dependencies were trying to tell me, as the
> config symbols and conditions seemed to repeat over and over in
> different places.

The {SSB,BCMA}_POSSIBLE constants are defining the conditions under
which it is possible to 'select' SSB/BCMA.
SSB and BCMA are usually 'select'ed rather than depended on, for better
user experience while configuring.

> I thought it was worth a clean up and this was the patch I came up
> with in the end.

IMO this does not clean up or simplify the code.
It rather makes it more complicated to maintain.

The idea behind the POSSIBLE constants it to _not_ spread the
conditions all across the drivers. That has significant advantages, if
the condition changes.

I also don't see the redundancy in the resulting dependency conditions
as a bad thing. It's better if every option explicitly defines its
dependencies rather than expecting something else to depend on it.
That's fragile.

NAK from me.

-- 
Michael Büsch
https://bues.ch/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped