Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965217Ab2JCSne (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 14:43:34 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:57302 "EHLO mail-ie0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965182Ab2JCSnd (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 14:43:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20121003164712.GF2527@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20121002195042.GA16087@www.outflux.net> <20121003132538.GE13192@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121003161702.GA22008@kroah.com> <20121003164712.GF2527@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 11:43:32 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: q688tsTzrv-oUpN7bz8RplwuVZk Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL invisible and default From: Kees Cook To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , Serge Hallyn , "David S. Miller" , Andrew Morton , Frederic Weisbecker Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2940 Lines: 62 On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:17:02AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman 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 >> > > CC: "Eric W. Biederman" >> > > CC: Serge Hallyn >> > > CC: "Paul E. McKenney" >> > > CC: Andrew Morton >> > > CC: Frederic Weisbecker >> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook >> > > --- >> > > >> > > 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 :) > > OK, so the only real hope for experimental features is to refrain from > creating a config option for them, so that people wishing to use them > must modify the code? Or is the philosophy that we keep things out of > tree until we are comfortable with distros turning them on? I would expect a simple addition of "this is dangerous/buggy" to the description and "default n" is likely the way to go for that kind of thing. I think the history of CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL has proven there isn't a sensible way to create a global flag for this kind of thing. To paraphrase Serge: my experimental options are not your experimental options. For example, some of the things that already had the experimental config removed, they left the "(EXPERIMENTAL)" in their config title. -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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/