[PATCH 0/5] Config Enforcer

[Nigel Cunningham]

Hi.

Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> It was proposed that we add a config enforcer build check to the kernel
> build process.  This checker reviews the configuration at build time to
> confirm that specific options have specific values.  This allows us to
> confirm and enforce the values of cirtain values.  Where those values

s/cirtain/certain/

> are not set the build will fail.

Is there a way for the builder to disable the checks? (They might want
non-standard options occasionally).

> This patch set adds a new check phase 'prepare-checks' which is triggered
> when the prepare phase is running.  It then adds a new config-prepare-check
> which looks at the newly generated config and checks the specified options.
> 
> The config option checks are specified debian.master/configs/enforce.
> This contains a predicate based language.  Each line represents one
> check, if the the line evaluates false then the check is deemed failed.
> Each line is made up of one or more predicates which are assertions.
> The primary assertions relate to the existance and values of parameters:

s/existance/existence/

> 
>   value CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES y
>   exists CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES
> 
> The rest of the assertions check environmentatal factors such as architecture

s/environmentatal/environmental/

> and flavour names:
> 
>   arch armel
>   flavour generic
> 
> These may be combined using and/or and parentheses, the resulting formular

s/forumular/forula/

> is then executed and if the overall result is true the line is ok.  This allows us to ensure options are set to different values based on architecture:
> 
>   (( arch armel | arch sparc ) & value CONFIG_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR 32768 ) | \
>        ( value CONFIG_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR 65536)
> 
> Following this email are 5 patches.  The first brings the new checker
> and some basic rules.  The remainder fix up the various violations.

What's the point? Is it an attempt to pick up bugs in vanilla and/or
patches that mess up configuration, or typos in Ubuntu's own changes, or
something else again? ("It was proposed" doesn't say why this patch
series is needed).

Regards,

Nigel