Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Image size checks: Remove HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1617 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 09:41:34PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 8/7/25 6:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On 8/7/25 12:24 PM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote:
> > > > CONFIG_HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT is obsolete, if we interpret the value
> > > > "zero" as "unlimited".
> > > 
> > > This sentence makes no sense. Is the variable not obsolete if its value is
> > > non-zero ?
> > 
> > This is phrased oddly, yes. How about:
> > By making the code treat a size limit of 0 as unlimited we no longer
> > need to guard asking about having a size limit on the platform.
> 
> 0 shouldn't mean unlimited, that is just fragile ...

That's a standard unix thing? ulimit -c 0 is unlimited.

> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
> > > > index c2aa88f59fb..36eed766d31 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/lib/efi_loader/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ config EFI_SIGNATURE_SUPPORT
> > > >    config EFI_DEBUG_SUPPORT
> > > >    	bool "EFI Debug Support"
> > > > -	default y if !HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT
> > > > +	default y if BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT = 0
> > > This looks wrong, no board size limit does not imply EFI anything.
> > 
> > This is however preserving the existing functionality. Saying that no,
> > we shouldn't enable EFI debug support by default in any cases would be a
> > stand alone patch.
> ... fragile and confusing. HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT is at least clear about what
> it does.

I don't know how one is more or less clear than the other, sorry.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]