UBUNTU: enforce -- ensure SYSFS compatibility is disabled
On 05/28/2010 01:29 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 03:07:25PM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 05/27/2010 02:37 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> Ensure we have all of the SYSFS compatibility modes disabled.
>>> BluePrint: http://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-maverick-upstart
>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <email@example.com>
>>> debian/config/enforce | 4 ++++
>>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/debian/config/enforce b/debian/config/enforce
>>> index 80be985..6481323 100644
>>> --- a/debian/config/enforce
>>> +++ b/debian/config/enforce
>>> @@ -38,3 +38,7 @@ value CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE 65536
>>> # LVM requires dm_mod built in to activate correctly (LP: #560717)
>>> value CONFIG_BLK_DEV_DM y
>>> +# sysfs: ensure all DEPRECATED items are off
>>> +value CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2 n
>>> +!exists CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED | value CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED n
>> Sorry for potentially being stupid here: that reads it is ok if either
>> CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED does not exist or if it does it needs to be n.
>> I think if CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED exists then CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2 does
>> not, so would it need a similar construct?
> Actually CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2 selects CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED and
> there is a reverse dependancy such that if CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2 is
> n then the other does not appear. _V2 is currently always there. So by
> not having the !exists we get warned when they change the names.
I was momentarily thinking of kernels that "had been" which might not have a _V2
but we won't backport the checker that far, so...
Acked-by: Stefan Bader <firstname.lastname@example.org>
kernel-team mailing list