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 > <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> 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 > >> <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> 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 <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > >> >> > CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebied...@xmission.com> > >> >> > CC: Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@canonical.com> > >> >> > CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >> >> > CC: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> > >> >> > CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> > >> >> > --- > >> >> > > >> >> > 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. Thanx, Paul > >> 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 > > -Kees > > -- > Kees Cook > Chrome OS Security > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/