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;
Date:   Sat, 14 Jul 2018 13:16:10 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Adrian Reber <adrian@lisas.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: remove EXPERT from CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
Message-ID: <20180714201610.GB17877@localhost>
References: <20180712130733.11510-1-adrian@lisas.de>
 <87sh4o5s82.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20180713135541.7ada72437862c32f4563a9a8@linux-foundation.org>
 <CAGXu5jJMBDd3-Yab78aYwQ1N6VG7=BjARoTF1pDygPhaWA9VNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87pnzpvdtd.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20180714191030.GA17877@localhost>
 <871sc5vc7n.fsf@xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <871sc5vc7n.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 02:39:24PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> 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.

No, it isn't. I've *watched* the kernel's size trend steadily upward
over time. And it largely happens in individual features that don't
think *their* contribution to size is all that large.

> > 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.

It adds up; there are hundreds more small features like it.

> 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.

I don't have any objection to *that*, as long as the option remains.