Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22 (evm)

[Arnaud Lacombe]

Hi,

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:39:02 -0400 Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 22:10 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > > I think that you are going to need to do something like Arnaud suggested
>>> > > and use "depends on TCG_TPM=y" instead of just "depends on TCG_TPM",
>>> > > unless you can convince someone that this is a kconfig bug.
>>> > >
>>> > dammit... I guess there is...
>>> >
>>> > If you consider the following Kconfig:
>>> >
>>> > config MOD
>>> >         bool
>>> >         default y
>>> >         option modules
>>> >
>>> > config EXPERIMENTAL
>>> >         bool
>>> >         default y
>>> >
>>> > menuconfig A
>>> >         tristate "A"
>>> >         depends on EXPERIMENTAL
>>> >
>>> > config B
>>> >         bool "B"
>>> >
>>> > config B0
>>> >         bool
>>> >
>>> > config C
>>> >         tristate "C"
>>> >         depends on B
>>> >
>>> > config C0
>>> >         tristate
>>> >
>>> > config D
>>> >         boolean "D"
>>> >         depends on A && B
>>> >         select C
>>> >         select C0
>>> >
>>> > config E
>>> >         tristate "E"
>>> >
>>> > config F
>>> >         tristate "F"
>>> >         select E
>>> >
>>> > B (KEYS) allows to set C (TRUSTED_KEYS). Also, B (KEYS) and A
>>> > (TCG_TPM) allows to set D (EVM), which will select (C). Now,
>>> > menuconfig highlight the problem very well. Proceeding as following
>>> > A=m, B=y, C=m, E=y, F=y, we ends up having:
>>> >
>>> >  <M> A  --->
>>> >  [*] B
>>> >  {M} C
>>> >  [*] D
>>> >  -*- E
>>> >  <*> F
>>> >
>>> > which translate in the following config:
>>> >
>>> > CONFIG_MOD=y
>>> > CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y
>>> > CONFIG_A=m
>>> > CONFIG_B=y
>>> > CONFIG_C=m
>>> > CONFIG_C0=m
>>> > CONFIG_D=y
>>> > CONFIG_E=y
>>> > CONFIG_F=y
>>> >
>>> > I would have expected CONFIG_C and CONFIG_C0 to be 'y', just as 'E'.
>>> > If you remove D's dependency on 'A', everything works as expected. So
>>> > it would seem direct dependency state influence the state of reverse
>>> > dependencies...
>>> >
>>> > Will have a look...
>>> >
>>> >  - Arnaud
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking into this!  Instead of changing 'TCG_TPM' to
>>> 'TCG_TPM=y', the dependency should be on 'TRUSTED_KEYS=y'.  Then when
>>> I've refactored ENCRYPTED_KEYS, removing the ENCRYPTED_KEYS dependency
>>> on TRUSTED_KEYS, the EVM dependency would be '(TRUSTED_KEYS=y ||
>>> TRUSTED_KEYS=n)'.  Do you want a temporary fix for now?
>>
>> Yes, linux-next (randconfig) builds are still failing, so we need something
>> to prevent that.
>>
> you may want to try:
>
> git://github.com/lacombar/linux-2.6.git master/kconfig/expr-woes
>
ping ?

 - Arnaud

> only the last commit is relevant to the problem, but depend on one
> another to get <assert.h>. The rest aims at tidying the expr stuff.
> I'm looking for regression it may have introduced.
>
> Thanks,
>  - Arnaud
>
> ps: I'll most likely be AFK until sunday evening (to be conservative).
>
>> thanks,
>> ---
>> ~Randy
>> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/