Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a7:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m36-v6csp792626imm; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 12:40:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeR3Jvt5ZzCwBLMtF+FiP2kNHUoZJmZ0A8Z/iFHkYDq0jHjbHEjNnHvuRmKR6zRqEKYL+6Q X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:1081:: with SMTP id c1-v6mr11070731pla.153.1531597255690; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 12:40:55 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1531597255; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=tTe6zZLvslY7yf3JFulmK2EJmMM5YMfqrNMNBuyG7DZpqvhoYLyu/iK+QMd4BOfmnh N3qBzexy46RjgwXEDAOlkesfnXevRnDhhmQZ7xGp8wewd+Ao4tTJheFyAafN3548raih RJ64s14DjF58BQ9Qyui86GW4fnvPVSM289mOS+Pu3KNSGf8s6bJNfPBVZQqT9tg/HvAD 4Pd0plDG0IFj5DafUPGGRvmYXFC5FWNoD/vyyRBkhCKLOq34rgsWiU6YrRXyCkCS/ibU Cwb/FUl1w/mLtnWM7N8TCVYdcb0j2d+xWDhqE8K9wmOny1pMQ8sebwltwLdussu6aMGy EM1w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:subject:mime-version:user-agent :message-id:in-reply-to:date:references:cc:to:from :arc-authentication-results; bh=PsJwEwzunyNDEM8SmweqMuMdiBYlzgyHFEPbvssvfFI=; b=W+6/Bx8LpqAv1UiDm0xCba7QnVX/3qojWGS9cymn1Z1r/bIJRM/S60u2PDHudouY2i LNlzyQYQLwnODrNpLc2yGqxNkL/WV3ZRHkDmgf/c+LQF4zbsFk6xMt7v+tDAah44IEAx ZE6QD+68GFJATiSCz8uuy1QW+XCiGX5sNqsiLLBfcTjX0d53uLcVz2MIgIZdz5lRFIIr kKnR85IR6i95XUF8WQg2j890ZSYk51HX95xlRqr7R6o1hOpwr9s1yNeTBVqcRWJ+Irbf xeaJNydE7GTHp5iWM0ypDj3MN20sh44bnNC5jRNcjB/xqWFD+vKbkT/Gg98odR19pFc4 jZLQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l128-v6si20634317pfc.129.2018.07.14.12.40.27; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 12:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730301AbeGNT7i (ORCPT + 99 others); Sat, 14 Jul 2018 15:59:38 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:57335 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727679AbeGNT7i (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jul 2018 15:59:38 -0400 Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1feQOB-0003Th-V2; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 13:39:31 -0600 Received: from [97.119.167.31] (helo=x220.xmission.com) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1feQOB-0005fB-DE; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 13:39:31 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Josh Triplett Cc: Kees Cook , Andrew Morton , Adrian Reber , LKML , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Emelyanov , Andrei Vagin , Hendrik Brueckner , Cyrill Gorcunov , Linux Containers References: <20180712130733.11510-1-adrian@lisas.de> <87sh4o5s82.fsf@xmission.com> <20180713135541.7ada72437862c32f4563a9a8@linux-foundation.org> <87pnzpvdtd.fsf@xmission.com> <20180714191030.GA17877@localhost> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 14:39:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180714191030.GA17877@localhost> (Josh Triplett's message of "Sat, 14 Jul 2018 12:10:31 -0700") Message-ID: <871sc5vc7n.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1feQOB-0005fB-DE;;;mid=<871sc5vc7n.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=97.119.167.31;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18gvSUzTuWmj5DpSJ0Z13IyU7LTt639n6I= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.119.167.31 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on sa05.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4874] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Josh Triplett X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 198 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.09 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.6 (1.8%), b_tie_ro: 2.6 (1.3%), parse: 1.33 (0.7%), extract_message_metadata: 16 (8.1%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.32 (0.7%), tests_pri_-1000: 8 (3.9%), tests_pri_-950: 1.81 (0.9%), tests_pri_-900: 1.47 (0.7%), tests_pri_-400: 22 (11.3%), check_bayes: 21 (10.6%), b_tokenize: 8 (3.9%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (3.0%), b_comp_prob: 2.5 (1.3%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.8 (1.4%), b_finish: 0.74 (0.4%), tests_pri_0: 133 (66.9%), check_dkim_signature: 0.62 (0.3%), check_dkim_adsp: 3.2 (1.6%), tests_pri_500: 7 (3.4%), poll_dns_idle: 0.10 (0.1%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: remove EXPERT from CHECKPOINT_RESTORE X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Josh Triplett writes: > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 02:04:46PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> For a config option that no one has come forward with an actual real >> world use case for disabling, that cost seems much too high. > > The real-world use case is precisely as stated: code size, both storage > and RAM. That is theoretical. Which platform will break or feel distressed if we make it unconditional. That is real world. > I regularly encounter systems I'd *like* to put Linux in that have > around 1MB of storage and 1MB of RAM, or even less. Yes. There is so little code behind CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART that it won't help with that. But if minification is the actual requirement for disabling CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART than CONFIG_CHECKPIONT_RESTART is properly behind expert and it needs to be default y instead of default n. Eric