From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hollis Blanchard Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:18:05 -0600 Message-ID: <1226092685.9309.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20081107202541.85d6a823.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1226076005.9309.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081107120500.05cfb3a0@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1226078666.9309.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081107123445.46cf3010@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:52649 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751019AbYKGVSH (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:18:07 -0500 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mA7LHZZ2016693 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:17:35 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id mA7LI6Yo100332 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:18:07 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mA7LI6NV031465 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:18:06 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20081107123445.46cf3010@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Josh Boyer Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Avi Kivity , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 12:34 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:24:26 -0600 > Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > > I'm not sure if there's precedent for features marked EXPERIMENTAL to be > > in the defconfig, but simply put I have not done a thorough audit of the > > KVM 440 code for security or DoS issues. (For example, until yesterday, > > the guest could trivially flood the host console because I'd left a > > printk enabled.) It just seems like asking for trouble to enable it in > > the defconfig. > > If you think it's really in rough enough shape that it's a concern for > .28, then I can change it back. Let me know soon. Well, I'm happy to have the (build) test coverage... Since KVM can only be invoked via /dev/kvm, and that device node (if automatically created) only has root permissions, I think it will be OK. > > That said, I have no complaint about having it enabled for linux-next > > builds. > > I don't have a separate defconfig for linux-next builds. We could do > that but I don't see much value. I want -next to be building (and > theoretically testing) what gets built for actual release kernels. Fair enough. -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center