Re: [PATCH] make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL invisible and default

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 05:46:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:08:40PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:25:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 12:50:42PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >> >> > This config item has not carried much meaning for a while now and is
>> >> >> > almost always enabled by default. As agreed during the Linux kernel
>> >> >> > summit, it should be removed. As a first step, remove it from being
>> >> >> > listed, and default it to on. Once it has been removed from all
>> >> >> > subsystem Kconfigs, it will be dropped entirely.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > CC: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > CC: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > ---
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is the first of a series of 202 patches removing EXPERIMENTAL from
>> >> >> > all the Kconfigs in the tree. Should I send them all to lkml (with all
>> >> >> > the associated CCs), or do people want to cherry-pick changes from my
>> >> >> > tree? I don't want to needlessly flood the list.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/experimental
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I figure this patch can stand alone to at least make EXPERIMENTAL go
>> >> >> > away from the menus, and give us a taste of what the removal would do
>> >> >> > to builds.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OK, I will bite...  How should I flag an option that is initially only
>> >> >> intended for those willing to take some level of risk?
>> >> >
>> >> > In the text say "You really don't want to enable this option, use at
>> >> > your own risk!"  Or something like that :)
>> >>
>> >> So, should I update the commit description to include a suggested
>> >> alternative? (If so, which one?)
>> >
>> > Which do you prefer?
>>
>> I think developers that want something harder that strongly worded
>> text in the Kconfig title or description should throw a printk.
>
> But having agreed-upon wording in the Kconfig title or description
> is still goodness.  Those of us who want printk()s, add_taint()s,
> or even WARN_ON()s can always add them.

I agree. I think, actually, it might make sense to retain the
"(EXPERIMENTAL)" text in the title. This is what has already been done
for some of the other subsystems.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 05:46:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:08:40PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >> Who is going to carry this initial patch, btw?
>> >
>> > You?  :)
>>
>> Do you mean to say I should ask Stephen to pull from one of my trees
>> for linux-next? If so, I've made this now:
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git linux-next
>
> Sounds good to me, good luck.

Stephen, can you add this tree to your pulls for linux-next?

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/