2018-02-12 20:44 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> I think Linus's comment was dismissed here.
>>
>>
>> Linus said:
>>
>>> But yes, I also reacted to your earlier " It can't silently rewrite it
>>> to _REGULAR because the compiler support for _STRONG regressed."
>>> Because it damn well can. If the compiler doesn't support
>>> -fstack-protector-strong, we can just fall back on -fstack-protector.
>>> Silently. No extra crazy complex logic for that either.
>>
>>
>> If I understood his comment correctly,
>> we do not need either WANT_* or _AUTO.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kees' comment:
>>
>>> In the stack-protector case, this becomes quite important, since the
>>> goal is to record the user's selection regardless of compiler
>>> capability. For example, if someone selects _REGULAR, it shouldn't
>>> "upgrade" to _STRONG. (Similarly for _NONE.)
>>
>> No. Kconfig will not do this silently.
>
> (Playing devil's advocate...)
>
> If the user selected _STRONG and it becomes unavailable later, it
> seems to silently fall back on other options, even for oldnoconfig
> (which just checks if there are any new symbols in the choice).
>
> It would be possible to also check if the old user selection still
> applies btw. I do that in Kconfiglib. It's arguable whether that
> matches the intent of oldnoconfig.
>
>>
>>
>> "make oldconfig" (or "make silentoldconfig" as well)
>> always ask users about new symbols.
>>
>>
>> For example, let's say your compiler supports -fstack-protector
>> but not -fstack-protector-strong.
>> CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR is the best you can choose.
>>
>> Then, let's say you upgrade your compiler and the new compiler supports
>> -fstack-protector-strong as well.
>>
>> In this case, CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG is a newly visible symbol,
>> so Kconfig will ask you
>> "Hey, you were previously using _REGULAR, but your new compiler
>> also supports _STRONG. Do you want to use it?"
>>
>>
>> The "make oldconfig" will look like follows:
>>
>>
>> masahiro@grover:~/workspace/linux-kbuild$ make oldconfig
>> HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/conf.o
>> HOSTLD scripts/kconfig/conf
>> scripts/kconfig/conf --oldconfig Kconfig
>> *
>> * Restart config...
>> *
>> *
>> * Linux Kernel Configuration
>> *
>> Stack Protector buffer overflow detection
>> 1. Strong (CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG) (NEW)
>>> 2. Regular (CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR)
>> 3. None (CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE)
>> choice[1-3?]:
>>
>>
>>
>> Please notice the Strong is marked as "(NEW)".
>>
>> Kconfig handles this really nicely with Linus' suggestion.
>>
>> [1] Users can select only features supported by your compiler
>> - this makes sense.
>>
>> [2] If you upgrade your compiler and it provides more capability,
>> "make (silent)oldconfig" will ask you about new choices.
>> - this also makes sense.
>
> If you switch to a compiler that provides less capability, it'll
> silently forget the old user preference though.
Yes, forget.
So, "make oldconfig" will ask user preference again
when you switch back to a compiler that provides more capability.
This is not rude, right?
To remember user preference (for both upgrade/downgrade capability),
we need 3 symbols for each feature.
[1] WANT_FOO
A user can enable this option regardless of compiler capability.
This will remember your preference forever.
[2] CC_HAS_FOO
Compiler capability.
[3] FOO
logical 'and' of WANT_FOO and CC_HAS_FOO.
If we do this way, what's the point of
moving compiler capability tests to Kconfig?
[1] is the same as what we do now.
Then, it will be disabled later
if it turns out unsupported by your compiler.
The only difference is,
whether we calculate [2], [3] in Makefile or Kconfig.
Kconfig is, in the end, inter-symbol dependency/visibility solver.
The WANT_ is not using the benefit of Kconfig.
We can calculate the logical 'and' by other means.
The problem I see in this approach is 'savedefconfig'.
'make defconfig && make savedefconfig'
will produce the subset of user preference and compiler capability.
To make arbitrary set of CONFIG options,
we need a full-featured compiler
in order to enable all CC_HAS_... options.
Maybe, we can add a new environment to ease this.
KCONFIG_SHELL_ALWAYS_TRUE
If this environment is specified, all 'option shell=...'
will be evaluated as true. So, all symbols that depend on
CC_HAS_ will be visible. This is useful to make
arbitrary set of CONFIG options regardless of
your compiler capability.
$ KCONFIG_SHELL_ALWAYS_TRUE=1 make menuconfig
-> build up your favorite config setting
$ KCONFIG_SHELL_ALWAYS_TRUE=1 make savedefconfig
-> write out the minimum set of config
Thought?
>>
>>
>>
>> So, the following simple implementation works well enough,
>> doesn't it?
>>
>> ---------------->8---------------
>> choice
>> prompt "Stack Protector buffer overflow detection"
>>
>> config CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
>> bool "Strong"
>> depends on CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
>> select CC_STACKPROTECTOR
>>
>> config CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR
>> bool "Regular"
>> depends on CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR
>> select CC_STACKPROTECTOR
>>
>> config CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE
>> bool "None"
>>
>> endchoice
>> ---------------->8-------------------------
>
> Obviously much neater at least. :)
>
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, do we need to use 'choice' ?
>>
>>
>> The problem of using 'choice' is,
>> it does not work well with allnoconfig.
>>
>>
>> For all{yes,mod}config, we want to enable as many features as possible.
>> For allnoconfig, we want to disable as many as possible.
>
> Oh... right. For allnoconfig, it would always pick the default, so if
> the default is "on", it's bad there.
>
>>
>> However, the default of 'choice' is always the first visible value.
>>
>>
>> So, I can suggest to remove _REGULAR and _NONE.
>>
>> We have just two bool options, like follows.
>>
>> ------------------->8-----------------
>> config CC_STACKPROTECTOR
>> bool "Use stack protector"
>> depends on CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR
>>
>> config CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
>> bool "Use strong strong stack protector"
>> depends on CC_STACKPROTECTOR
>> depends on CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
>> -------------------->8------------------
>
> Even neater. Much easier to understand.
>
>>
>> This will work well for all{yes,mod,no}config.
>>
>> We will not have a case where
>> -fstack-protector-strong is supported, but -fstack-protector is not.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards
>> Masahiro Yamada
>
> So there's just the caveat about possibly "forgetting" the user
> preferences and automatically falling back on
> CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR or CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE when the
> environment changes, instead of erroring out.
>
> When you have to think hard about cases where something might break,
> it might be a sign that it's not a huge problem in practice, but I
> can't really speak for the priorities here.
>
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
