Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 07/01/2013 05:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:17:07PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 07/01/2013 03:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>>>>> Q: What about my stable server? I really don't want to run this
>>>>>> stuff!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A: These options would depend on !CONFIG_VANILLA or
>>>>>> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
>>>>> What is CONFIG_VANILLA?  I don't see that in the upstream kernel tree
>>>>> at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL is now gone from upstream, so you are going to
>>>>> have a problem with this.
>>>> Earlier I mentioned "2) These feature should depend on a non-vanilla /
>>>> experimental option." which is an option we would introduce under the
>>>> Gentoo distribution menu section.
>>> Distro-specific config options, great :(
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "distro-specific",
> See later mention of CONFIG_GENTOO_EXPERIMENTAL, that is what I was
> referring to.
>
>> but suppose people
>> want BFQ? Why can't we have it in gentoo-sources.  It is totally
>> disabled by not selecting CONFIG_BFQ.  Selecting it is no different
>> than emerging pf-sources with the same other options ported over.
> Until you run into a patch that modifies code outside of it's CONFIG_
> option, like the aufs example I pointed out.

Yeah, that's the situation with hardened-sources and then we are in 
agreement.  If its orthogonal to the rest of the kernel, I maintain that 
it can safely be included with the appropriate warnings.

>
>> By your logic, we should not distribut pf-sources either.  The truth
>> of the matter is, there are forks of the vanilla kernel out there. Are
>> you suggesting we distribute none of them?
> That's a total false argument, the discussion here is about our "main"
> gentoo-kernel tree, not one of our many domain-specific kernel versions
> that are maintained separately.

Now I'm confused because gentoo-sources is gentoo specific.  It contains 
stuff that we need in gentoo but other distros do not need, like our 
end-to-end support for certain xattr namespaces.  If you remove these 
then we must either 1) maintain a userland which is not in line with 
other distros or 2) give up on critical features we want in gentoo, like 
markings on elf object in user.pax.flags and certain caps, as well as in 
the future preserving selinux labels through emerge.  Upstream will not 
accept them because of "who needs that crap" and we can't give them up 
without loosing core functionality.  Feel free to review those patches 
but don't ask us to drop them from gentoo-sources because their not in 
upstream.

Only vanilla-sources should be exactly that.  upstream vanilla with 
nothing else.  period.


>
>> NOTE: hardened-sources is its own world.  There is not level of
>> turning on/off options that get you back to a vanilla kernel.
> Agreed, which keeps that from being merged into this tree, hopefully :)

Yeah I think everyone is in agreement with that.  But it also fits my 
point about orthogonality above.


-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@g.o
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA