Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 May 2020 10:17:48 +0200 | From | Petr Mladek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] twist: allow converting pr_devel()/pr_debug() into snprintf() |
| |
On Thu 2020-05-28 12:50:35, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:17 AM Tetsuo Handa > <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote: > > > > CONFIG_TWIST_FOR_SYZKALLER_TESTING is meant for linux-next only. > > But CONFIG_TWIST_KERNEL_BEHAVIOR is meant for Linus's tree. > > I really absolutely still detest this all. I don't see the point. The > naming is completely random (both "twist" and then options like > "TWIST_FOR_SYZKALLER_TESTING" that have no conceptual meaning. > > I still don't understand why this small set of random options couldn't > just be kernel options that get set on the command line, and that have > independent and sane and explainable behavior? Why this odd mentality > of "syzkaller is special"?
I am afraid that many of them could not be normal options. They change or break some behavior that is necessary by seriously used system.
> I've complained about this whole thing before. I'm getting really fed > up with this whole concept of "magic crazy config options".
Just to make my role clear in this saga.
I am focused on the change of pr_debug() behavior. I do _not_ believe that it is worth it. But I wanted to give fuzzer guys a chance to get some data.
This is why I offered to push hacky patch into linux-next via printk tree to get fuzzers fed. Such a patch would change the behavior only for the fuzzer (with the crazy config enabled) and it would be there only for a limited time.
I personally do _not_ have a good feeling about having such hacks in upstream kernel. But I do not feel in position to decide about it. I wanted to solve this question later if there would have been anything to upstream.
I am _not_ going to push any twists, in the current form, upstream via printk tree.
Best Regards, Petr
| |