On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:02 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 02:41:38PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 9:25 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:43:07PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > > > +config SECURITY_APPARMOR_TEST > > > > > + bool "Build KUnit tests for policy_unpack.c" > > > > > + default n > > > > > + depends on KUNIT && SECURITY_APPARMOR > > > > > > > > Ted, here is an example where doing select on direct dependencies is > > > > tricky because SECURITY_APPARMOR has a number of indirect dependencies. > > > > > > Well, that could be solved by adding a select on all of the indirect > > > dependencies. I did get your point about the fact that we could have > > > > In this particular case that would work. > > > > > cases where the indirect dependencies might conflict with one another. > > > That's going to be a tough situation regardless of whether we have a > > > sat-solver or a human who has to struggle with that situation. > > > > But yeah, that's the real problem. > > I think at this stage we want to make it _possible_ to write tests > sanely without causing all kinds of headaches. I think "build all the > tests" can just be a function of "allmodconfig" and leave it at that > until we have cases we really need to deal with. That...appears to work. I really can't see any reason why that isn't good enough for now. I am surprised that this hasn't been suggested yet. Thanks!
